The Critical Role of the Team

Michael RempelCenter for Court Innovation(Rempelm@courtinnovation.org)

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