Download - The Critical Role of the Team
The Critical Role of the Team
Michael RempelCenter for Court Innovation([email protected])
Presented at the 2014 Oklahoma Specialty Court Conference, Norman, OK, September 11, 2014
Drug Court
Drug Courts: The Bottom Line
Positive Outcomes
• Reduced Recidivism
• Reduced Drug Use
• Cost Savings
Drug Courts: The Bottom Line Positive Results:
Recidivism (more than 100 evaluations to-date):About 4 in 5 adult drug courts reduce recidivismAverage recidivism reduction = 8-12 percentage pointsSomewhat lower average effects with juvenile drug courts
Drug Use & Cost Savings: Fewer studies, mostly positive
Variations by Site: Range from cutting recidivism in half; to modest reductions; to increasing recidivism.
Role of Evidence-Based Practice: Variations in impact reflect variations in court policy and practice
Why Do Drug Courts Work?
Evidence-Based Principles
• Treatment
• Deterrence
• Procedural Justice
• Staff/Collaboration
Positive Outcomes
• Reduced Recidivism
• Reduced Drug Use
• Cost Savings
Target Population
• High-Risk
• High-Leverage
• High-Need
Why Do Drug Courts Work?
Staff/Collaboration
Staff Skills
Leadership
Collaboration
1. Staff Skills Assignment: Volunteered or assigned; Long-term
assignment or regular rotation.
Credentials: Relevant degree(s); length of experience
Training: Received criminal justice & clinical training—i.e., cross-training in each perspective); participated in drug court-specific team-building training/exercises
Evidence-based Practice: Familiar with proven effective strategies within staff member’s discipline
2. Operational Leadership Operational Leadership: Program has convener
and respected leader of the team.
Leader Credentials: Leader has advanced clinical credentials and multiple years in the field
Research Knowledge: Leader has read research related to evidence-based practices
3. Collaboration Interdisciplinary Team: Team includes judge,
coordinator, resource coordinator, case manager, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation officer(s), treatment, and law enforcement.
Staffing Meetings: Usually weekly at minimum.
Court Session: Interdisciplinary team attendance; use of comparatively non-adversarial process.
Drug Court Results Sources:
NPC Research 69-site Best Practices Study (Carey et al. 2012)
Center for Court Innovation 86-site NYS study (Cissner et al. 2013)
Broad (1) Representation and (2) Buy-in: Treatment: Attends team meetings and court sessions Law Enforcement: On team and attends team meetings Dedicated Prosecutor and Defense Attorney: Attend
team meetings and court sessions (both attorneys)MODERATE ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT V. NONE: 5-
point effectHIGH ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT V. NONE: 10-point
effect
Drug Court Research Effective Communication:
Treatment communicates with court by e-mailProxy for efficient communication—not about e-mail…
Shared Knowledge of Court Policies: Team members receive copy of sanctions guidelinesProxy for:
a) Policy formalization; and
b) Shared knowledge of formalized policies—enabling each team member to adhere to policies and apprise participants of them with accuracy.
Broader Findings & Lessons Qualitative: Implementation Studies
Quantitative: “What Works” Studies
Key Authorities: Latessa, Lowenkamp, Gendreau
Key Tools: Correctional Program Checklist (CPC); Correctional Programs Assessment Inventory (CPAI)
What Works: Clinical Staff Clinical Staff Credentials:
Higher % with college degree (> 75%) & advanced degree Higher percent of staff with degree in “helping profession”
(social work, psychology, counseling, etc.)
Clinical Staff Experience More years experience working with offenders (> 1 yr.) More years in current program (> 50% for 2+ years) (Staff
turnover often found to be an obstacle to effectiveness)
Clinical Staff Supervision: Supervisor regularly sits in on groups & gives feedback Weekly clinical staff meetings are held (58%)
What Works: Staff (Continued) Hiring Process: Staff hired/assigned due to personal
qualities likely to contribute to the program
Continued Training: Staff attends ongoing trainings, workshops, seminars
Input Down and Up: Line staff able to give input into service delivery or program policies.
“A top-down approach to planning may alienate line staff; without line staff buy-in operational challenges will arise.” (Cissner and Farole 2009)
Criminal Justice Leader Survey (624 Chief Judges and Court Administrators, Police Chiefs, DAs, and Community Corrections Directors): 2nd most often noted barrier to innovation (lack of funding was first) was “Not enough buy-in from front-line staff.”
What Works: Leadership Finding: “A project director can provide leadership and
guide day-to-day operations.” (Cissner and Farole 2009)
Consequences of Inadequate Leadership Lack of team cohesion—each team member reports to
agency director, challenge to team-building & consensus
Lack of information sharing—e.g., court, probation, and treatment staff do not share assessment information
Lack of policy formalization—team never formalizes key protocols—e.g., sanctions and incentives schedule; evidence-based eligibility policies and protocols, etc.
Lack of evidence-based practice—leader cannot effectively introduce proven evidence-based strategies
What Works: Leadership Specific Findings: Correctional programs achieve
greater recidivism reductions when: Director Qualifications: professionally trained in clinical
field—has degree in a “helping profession” Director Experience: has 3+ years experience in field Director Trains Staff: Director is involved in training staff Director Reads Research: Director designs program,
having read research on what works with the types of offenders who will be targeted
Implications for the Judge: Need for program and/or clinical director with real authority
Leadership to Collaboration Key Source: Research by Van Wormer (e.g., 2010
dissertation; survey of 325 drug court professionals)
Judge as “Collaborative” Leader: Judge is most likely to follow the team’s decision when it relates: (a) to a sanction; (b) to treatment; (c) to an incentive or reward.
Collaborative Practice in Drug Courts: Collaboration is generally high, but concerns include: “Drift”: Shift to punishment/punitive philosophy/practice
Staff: Less commitment of prosecutor, defense, probation
Lack of Training: negatively associated with collaboration and with perceptions of model adherence
Why Do Drug Courts Work?
Staff/Collaboration
Staff Skills
Leadership
Collaboration
Tools and Illustrations1. Program Assessment Survey: Use checklist to
assess your drug court on staffing, leadership, and collaboration issues.
2. The Staffing Meeting: Engage in self-reflection and/or self-assessment related to the staffing meeting
3. The Court Session: Engage in self-reflection and/or self-assessment related to the court session
4. Training: Ensure team cohesion and shared knowledge across the team
1. Program Assessment Correctional Program Checklist
Correctional Programs Assessment Inventory
Drug Court-Specific Checklists/Surveys
The CCI Program Survey
Evidence-Based Principles
• Treatment
• Deterrence
• Procedural Justice
• Implementation Issues
• Staff/Collaboration
Positive Outcomes
• Reduced Recidivism
• Reduced Drug Use
• Cost Savings
Target Population
• High-Risk
• High-Leverage
• High-Need
Sample Items: The Team1. For how many years has the judge presided in the drug court? ____ (# Years)
2. For how many years has the program coordinator worked in the drug court? _____ (# Years)
3. What advanced training or educational credentials does the program coordinator possess (e.g., JD, MSW, LSW, CASAC)?
4. For how many years has the program coordinator worked as a clinician or clinical supervisor (enter “0” if the program coordinator has a legal or other non-clinical background)? ____ (# Years)
5. Please indicate whether the judge or coordinator helped to plan the drug court. Neither Yes, judge Yes, coordinator Yes, both judge and coordinator
Sample Items: The Team6. Please indicate whether the judge or coordinator have ever attended a formal
training on each of the following topics by checking the appropriate boxes.
7. Does the judge or coordinator regularly read research on evidence-based practices? [options for 1, the other, both, or neither]
8. Has the judge or coordinator used, or do they currently use, research to shape or revise the design of the program? [options for 1, the other, both, or neither]
Training Topic Judge Coordinator
Pharmacology of addiction
Co-occurring mental health disorders
Best practices in legal sanctions and incentives
Best practices in judicial communication
The “Risk-Needs-Responsivity” principles
Trauma assessment and/or trauma-informed therapy
Treatment for special populations (e.g., young adults or women with children)
Sample Items: The Team9. Does your drug court hold regular staffing meetings to discuss individual
cases? No Yes, weekly Yes, biweekly Yes, less than biweekly
10. When participants are noncompliant, how often is the use of sanctions (if any) determined through a consensus discussion at a pre-court staffing meeting? Never/rarely Sometimes Often Always/virtually always
11. Does your drug court hold regular policy-level stakeholder meetings to discuss court policies and practices or to review quantitative performance data? No Yes, monthly or more frequent Yes, about quarterly Yes, about two or three times per year Yes, about annually Yes, less than annually
Sample Items: The Team
Position#
Assign-ed Staff
# at Staffing
Mts.
# at Policy Mtgs.
# at Court
Sessions
Project coordinator Dedicated judge Dedicated prosecutor Dedicated defense attorney Resource coordinator Case manager Probation officer Law enforcement officer Treatment providerMental health agency Other:
12. For each position listed in the chart below, please indicate how many staff members fill that position, attend staffing meetings, attend policy meetings, and attend judicial status hearings.
2. The Staffing Meeting Time: There is no evidence-based target, but large
calendars require less time per case (e.g., 30 cases at 5 minutes each = 2 ½ hours)
Information: Did all staff members possess the same written reports? (Were treatment details, drug testing results, and special issues indicated?)
Convener Role: Who ran the staffing? (Could one tell? How efficient was the moderation? Was the flow of conversation consistent—e.g., lead-off with treatment or supervision report?)
Team Dynamics: Did all participants have a voice? (Was there mutual respect? Any alliances? Did treatment see clinical expertise acknowledged? Did attorneys see equal input?)
2. The Staffing Meeting Consensus-Building: For “noncompliant cases”:
Did team recommend a response (yes/no)?
Did team recommend anything about the judicial interaction (e.g., ask certain questions, offer praise, warn participant to discontinue certain behaviors, etc.?) (yes/no)
Were recommendations made only after reaching consensus (yes/no)
Did recommendations (e.g., on sanctions and incentives) draw on a schedule or established policies? (Or did the team create their thinking anew in each case, without reference to formal policies)? (yes/no)
How often did judge follow recommendations in court?
2. The Staffing Meeting Implications for Judicial Status Hearings:
Were adversarial issues resolved prior to the hearings (leading them not to arise)? (yes/no)
Did judge and participant do all/nearly all the talking in the actual judicial status hearings (yes/no)
Did judge draw effectively upon the discussion at the staffing meetings?
3. The Court Session
What is Structured Observation? A means of producing a combined quantitative/qualitative report on the interaction between judge and participant
3. The Court Session Time: Target > 3 minutes/hearing (average & median)
Session Participation: Target = Mostly the judge: Progress reports from treatment are acceptable
Response to Compliant Report: Target = Praise: Plus: Remind of future benefits of ongoing compliance
Response to Noncompliant Report: Target = Verbal Admonishment: Plus: Tangible sanction Plus: Remind of future consequences of noncompliance
Observing Each Hearing Judicial Interaction:
Judge made regular eye contact with defendant Judge talked directly to defendant (not via attorney) Judge asked non-probing questions Judge asked probing questions Judge imparted instructions or advice Judge explained consequences of future compliance Judge explained consequences of noncompliance
Response to Behavior: Sanction if noncompliant; praise or incentive if compliant
Observing the Overall Session Use of Courtroom Space:
Participant’s distance from bench (in feet) Acoustics for participant and audience Other aspects of layout (# rows, tables, chairs, etc.)
Ratings of Judicial Demeanor (1-5): Respectful Fair Consistent/Predictable Caring Knowledgeable Clear
4. Training Methods Training Modalities:
In-House Training by Director (if qualified) In-Person (e.g., NADCP, state or team trainings) Online Training—watch it in groups and then discuss Peer-to-Peer Learning (e.g., state-based system)
Training Content: Team-building (e.g., define each other’s role and ask
questions about it; discussion at the end) Evidence-based practice: Build common understanding:
Didactic presentations (listen; obtain common knowledge) Local applications (discuss; engage in policymaking)
Why Do Drug Courts Work?
Evidence-Based Principles
• Treatment
• Deterrence
• Procedural Justice
• Staff/Collaboration
Positive Outcomes
• Reduced Recidivism
• Reduced Drug Use
• Cost Savings
Target Population
• High-Risk
• High-Leverage
• High-Need
A Generic Training Agenda Session 1: Didactic: Evidence-Based Practices
Session 2: Discussion: Session 1 Applications
Session 3: Mixed: Assessment/Treatment Plan
Session 4: Discussion Treatment Resources
Session 5: Mixed: Sanctions and Incentives
Structured Staffing Observation
Structured Courtroom Observation
A Generic Training Agenda Session 6: Discussion: Screening/Referral/Eligibility
Session 7: Discussion Team Member Roles
Session 8: Discussion: Data Collection/Reporting
Session 9: Mixed: Staffing/Court Session Feedback
Session 10: Didactic: Evidence-Based Treatment
Session 11: Discussion: Action/Strategic Planning
Generic Resources (USA) National Association of Drug Court Professionals:
General Page: http://www.nadcp.org/
Evidence-Based Standards: http://www.nadcp.org/Standards
NADCP Standard on The Drug Court Team: Coming Soon…
Research to Practice (R2P) Project: http://www.research2practice.org/index.html
National Institute of Justice: http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/welcome.htm
Center for Court Innovation: General Drug Court Page: http://www.courtinnovation.org/topic/drug-court
Training and Technical Assistance: http://www.drugcourtta.org/
Online Learning System: http://www.drugcourtonline.org/
Specific Resources#1 This powerpoint presentation
#2 NPC Research Best Practice Study (Carey, Macklin, and Finigan 2012): Available at: http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/DCR_best-practices-in-drug-courts.pdf
#3 Avoiding Failures of Implementation: Lessons from Process Evaluations (Cissner & Farole 2009): Available at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Failure%20Final.pdf
#4 Understanding Operational Dynamics of Drug Courts (Van Wormer 2010): Available at: https://research.wsulibs.wsu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2376/2810/vanWormer_wsu_0251E_10046.pdf?sequence=1
#5 The Importance of Evaluating Correctional Programs: Assessing Outcome and Quality: Available at: http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/articles/ImportanceofEvaluatingCorrectionalPrograms.pdf
#6 Protocols for Structured Staffing Observation
Questions & Discussion