The Critical Role of the Team Michael Rempel Center for Court Innovation 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 recidivism Average recidivism reduction = 8-12 percentage points Somewhat 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) M ODERATE ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT V. N ONE : 5-point effect H IGH ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT V. N ONE : 10-point effect

Drug Court Research Effective Communication:  Treatment communicates with court by  Proxy for efficient communication—not about … Shared Knowledge of Court Policies:  Team members receive copy of sanctions guidelines  Proxy 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): 2 nd 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 Illustrations 1. 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 Team 1. 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 Team 6. 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 TopicJudgeCoordinator 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 Team 9. 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 provider Mental 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:  Evidence-Based Standards:  NADCP Standard on The Drug Court Team: Coming Soon… Research to Practice (R2P) Project: National Institute of Justice: courts/welcome.htm courts/welcome.htm Center for Court Innovation:  General Drug Court Page:  Training and Technical Assistance:  Online Learning System:

Specific Resources #1This powerpoint presentation #2NPC Research Best Practice Study (Carey, Macklin, and Finigan 2012): Available at: practices-in-drug-courts.pdfhttp:// practices-in-drug-courts.pdf #3Avoiding Failures of Implementation: Lessons from Process Evaluations (Cissner & Farole 2009): Available at: #4Understanding Operational Dynamics of Drug Courts (Van Wormer 2010): Available at: rmer_wsu_0251E_10046.pdf?sequence=1 rmer_wsu_0251E_10046.pdf?sequence=1 #5The Importance of Evaluating Correctional Programs: Assessing Outcome and Quality: Available at: gCorrectionalPrograms.pdf gCorrectionalPrograms.pdf #6Protocols for Structured Staffing Observation

Questions & Discussion