View
42
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Performance based drug courts: executing the 16 strategies in practice. Jacqueline van Wormer, Ph.D. Washington State University NCJFCJ. Purpose of Session. To talk about effectiveness of the JDC model Program Outcomes Cost Benefit - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
JACQUELINE VAN WORMER, PH.D.WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
NCJFCJ
PERFORMANCE BASED DRUG COURTS:
EXECUTING THE 16 STRATEGIES IN PRACTICE
Purpose of Session
To talk about effectiveness of the JDC model Program Outcomes Cost Benefit
What is working and not working in the JDC model via review of the 16 Strategies in Practice
Tips and examples of effective programs & techniques
Effective Juvenile Justice Principles
Probation/court monitoring, group homes, and correctional facilitates have minimal impact subsequent recidivism. Some studies show negative effects (Lipsey and Cullen, 2007; Petrosino et al., 2010).
• SOURCE: LIPSEY, 2010
Effective Juvenile Justice Principles
Deterrence-oriented programs that focus on discipline, surveillance, or threat of punitive consequences (e.g., prison visitation Scared Straight–type programs, boot camps, and intensive probation supervision) have no effect on recidivism and may actually increase it (Lipsey, 2009).
• SOURCE: LIPSEY, 2010
Effective Juvenile Justice Principles
“Therapeutic” programs oriented toward facilitating constructive behavior change have shown very positive effects—even for serious offenders (Lipsey, 2009).
Model fidelity to manualized EBP’s is critical!
• SOURCE: LIPSEY, 2010
Juvenile Drug Court Research
Early research: Small samples and poor designs. Negative effects found by Hartmann & Rhineberger (2003); No effects on recidivism found by Wright and Clymer (2001);
Anspach et al., (2003) Positive Findings:
Lutze & Mason (2007); Latessa et al (2002), Rodriguez & Webb (2004), Shaffer et al., (2008) Hickert (2010), Hennegeler (2006, 2012), NPC Research (2006, 2010)
Latessa report (2013)Meta-Analysis:
Null-findings for both Wilson et al (2006); Shaffer (2006) Small effect size – Mitchell et al (2012)
Cost-Benefit Findings
Findings vary dramatically across courts
More likely to generate greater cost savings with minimal use of detention. No difference in the rate of re-arrest for
juveniles placed in a juvenile institution vs. community. No correlation between length of stay and re-arrest. Long periods of incarceration does not change behavior and is costly to your program!
The Cost of Treatment vs. Continued Use
Screening & Brief Inter.(1-2 days)Outpatient (18 weeks)
In-prison TC (28 weeks) Intensive Outpatient (12 weeks)Adolescent Outpatient (12 wks)
Treatment Drug Court (46 weeks)Methadone Maintenance (87 wks)
Residential (13 weeks)Therapeutic Community (33 wks)
$0
$10,
000
$20,
000
$30,
000
$40,
000
$50,
000
$60,
000
$70,
000
$407 $1,132 $1,249 $1,384 $1,517 $2,486 $4,277
$10,228 $14,818
Source: French et al., 2008; Chandler et al., 2009; Capriccioso, 2004 in 2009 dollars
$22,000 / year to incarcerate an adult
$30,000/ child-year in foster care
$70,000/year to keep a child in detention
• $750 per night in Medical Detox• $1,115 per night in hospital • $13,000 per week in intensive care for premature baby• $27,000 per robbery• $67,000 per assault
SBIRT models popular due to ease of implementation and low cost
New Key Findings
To strengthen outcomes: Engage families
Attend court & active involvement Support group method Engage entire family in services if able
Adopt evidence-based treatment practices Utilize contingency-management procedures Evaluate and continually monitor team for adherence
to 16 Strategies in Practice. Follow the model!!
Not All Drug Courts Are Equally Effective
CSAT, OJJDP and Reclaiming Futures (RF) partnered with a subset of 10 Grantees who put greater emphasis on
– Standardized screening to better target youth– Using the GAIN data to drive treatment planning– Developmentally appropriate evidence-based
treatment practices implemented with fidelity– Staff training and peer fellowships across site
This Reclaiming Futures Juvenile Treatment Drug Court (RF-JTDC) was compared to a sample from other Juvenile Treatment Drug Courts (JTDC) matched with propensity score weighting on 63 intake variables (see Dennis et al 2013).
11
Change in Days of Substance Use\a
\a Days of abstinence s while living in the community; If coming from detention at intake, based on the days before detention.\b Change within condition is statistically & clinically significant for both JTDC and RF-JTDC\c Amount of change is significantly better for RF-JTDC than JTDC
090
180270360
Day
s of
Use
Source: JTDC vs. RF-JTDC (weighted n=1112)
RF JTDC Reduce Use more
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Ac
ross
Change in Use by JTDC Site
All RF Sites average (box) or better (above box)
0 of the 4 worst are RF siites
4 of the 5 best sites are RF
Exploring the 16 Strategies
The Importance of Teams
Strategy One: “Engage all stakeholders in creating an interdisciplinary, coordinated, and systemic approach to working with youth and families”
Strategy Two: “Develop and maintain an interdisciplinary, non-adversarial work team”
Strategy Four: “ Schedule frequent judicial reviews and be sensitive to the effect that court proceedings can have on youth and families”
Treatment Provider Source: NPC Research
YesN=57
NoN=10
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40% 38%
19%
A Representative from Treatment Attends Court Hearings
% re
ducti
on in
# o
f rea
rres
ts
Defense Attorney
Prosecutor
All Team Members
Drug Courts That Have Judges Stay Longer Than Two Years Had 3 Times Greater Cost Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.05
Judges Who Spent at Least 3 Minutes Talking to Each Participant in Court Had More Than Twice the Savings
Note: Difference is significant at p<.1
Target Population & Eligibility Criteria: Assessing true needs and resources
Strategy Three: “ Define a target population and eligibility criteria that are aligned with the program’s goals and objectives”
Strategy Six: “Build partnerships with community organizations to expand the range of opportunities available to youth and their families.”
Strategy Five: Monitoring & Evaluation
“Establish a system for program monitoring and evaluation to maintain quality of service, assess program impact, and contribute to knowledge in the field”
Research: Rempel (2005) Carey & Finigan (2008)
Importance of Evaluator Role
General literature shows that programs that have evaluator involved from inception increases program success. Allows for training, quality assurance and data review
In their review of 69 standard drug court practices, NPC Research (Portland, OR) found that: Courts that review their data and stats, and modify their
court operations based on findings have stronger reductions in recidivism and greater cost-savings.
Courts that have program evaluations completed & modifications completed have stronger reductions in recidivism and greater cost-savings.
Comprehensive Assessments and Treatment Planning
Strategy Seven: “Tailor interventions to the complex and varied needs of youth and their families”
Strategy Eight: “ Tailor treatment to the developmental needs of adolescents”
Strategy Twelve: “ Recognize and engage the family as a valued partner in all components of the program”
Quiz!! Hot or Not?
Quiz: Hot or Not?
Quiz: Hot or Not?
Treatment Modalities
ACRAFFTPYP7CBoot camps/wilderness programsMET/CBT5MSTCMIntensive Supervision
What works in Juvenile Justice Programming?
Lipsey (2009): 548 studiesFindings:
Interventions applied to high-risk delinquents, on average, produced larger recidivism reductions than when those interventions were applied to low-risk delinquents.
Favor therapeutic methods over control methods Both generic and evidence-based programs can be
effective if certain principles followed Amount and quality are key Must maintain model fidelity in both your treatment
programs and your JDC model.
Key Elements of D/A Treatment Effectiveness
Screening/Assessment and Treatment Matching
Comprehensive, Integrated Treatment Approach
Family Involvement in Treatment
Developmentally Appropriate Treatment
Engage and Retain Teens in Treatment• Source: Brannigan et al (2004).
Key Elements of Effectiveness (cont.)
Qualified Staff
Gender and Cultural Competence
Continuing Care
Treatment Outcomes
Ongoing Supports and Services: Quality Assurance and Model Fidelity Critical.
Major Predictors of Bigger Effects
1. A strong intervention protocol based on prior evidence
2. Quality assurance to ensure protocol adherence and project implementation
3. Proactive case supervision of individual
4. Triage to focus on the highest severity subgroup
Impact of the numbers of these “Favorable Features” on Recidivism
Source: Lipsey; Muck (2010)
Source: Adapted from Lipsey, 1997, 2005
Average
Practice
The more features, the lower
the recidivis
m
Other Common Findings Low structure and ad hoc “treatment as usual”
does not do as well as evidenced based practice
Wilderness programs have mixed effects
Treating adolescents like adults (or with adults), and in boot camp causes harm on average
Relapse is still common and there is a need for on-going support, monitoring and when necessary re-intervention
Evidence Based Practice Examples
Motivational Enhancement Therapy/Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MET/CBT)
Motivational Interviewing (MI)Multi Systemic Therapy (MST)Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT)Seven Challenges (7C)Adolescent Community Reinforcement
Approach (ACRA)
Source: Adapted from Lipsey et al 2001, 2010; Waldron et al, 2001, Dennis et al, 2004
Focus on Strengths
Strategy eleven: “ Maintain a focus on the strengths of youth and their families during program planning and in every interaction between the court and those it serves”
Strategy Fourteen: Drug Testing
“ Design drug testing to be frequent, random and observed. Document testing policies and procedures in writing”
Research: Ives et al (2010) Carey et al (2006)
Goal-Oriented Incentives and Sanctions
Strategy Fifteen: “Respond to compliance and noncompliance with incentives and sanctions that are designed to reinforce or modify the behavior of youth and their families”
Research: Gendreau (1999) NPC (2006, 2010) Henggeler et al., (2006, 2012 (a) (b)) Salvatore et al., (2010)
The Teenage Brain
Incentives & Sanctions, Continued
Historical CJ responses vs. modification of behavior through a coordinated and thoughtful (research informed) process
Punishment for a “wrong” is not the goal – behavior change is the goal
The JDC should use a balance of incentives, sanctions and treatment responses
Phase I: setting the stage
Phase II: learning skills
Phase III: maintaining the change
Readiness, stabilization Engagement, involvement
Reflection, enrichment
Focus on compliance Beyond compliance Decrease in drug testing, court appearance
High level of structure Skill development Expanded development activities
Clarifying expectations, building trust
Completing assignments
Enriching community connections
Phase StructureSource: Betty Gurnell
The Four Steps
Behavior to targetCurrent behaviorDesired behaviorSmall, achievable increments
Decision Matrix – Phase I
Phase I Incentives Sanctions
Behavior *Response Response
Attend school at least 18 out of 20 days
• Teacher signs attendance card each day present and acknowledges
•Small prize or coupon for each week with no absences
• After school study hall for each day absent over the limit to make up all missed work
Decision Matrix – Phase II
Phase II Incentives Sanctions
Behavior *Response *Response
Attend regularly
Complete all assignments
•Select a book , notebook, pen after two weeks of success•Praise from teacher, family, court•Grades improve
•After school study hall to complete assignments (with help as needed)
Decision Matrix – Phase III
Phase III Incentives Sanctions
Behavior *Response *Response
Attend regularly
Complete all assignments
Improve grades
•Praise from teacher, family, court for improvement•Certificate of achievement•Select school related gift: tuition, book
•Determine if tutor is needed
•Attend extra class or session for help
•Tighten curfew
Write policy – how, when and by whom will responses be made = better outcomes
Determine range of responsesCommunicate well with each otherTrust each otherEngage the family Be clear about expectationsDevelop reliable system to monitor behavior
JDC team needs to
Incentives and Sanctions, continued
Key components: Immediate, certain, fair and of appropriate intensity Do not rely solely on standardized “lists” Should be proportional and balanced Punishment alone is least effective way to change behavior Be comfortable in combining incentives and sanctions Be cognizant of time Perceptions of fairness – it all begins with individualization Make sure youth understand their positive and negative
reinforcers• Yeres et al (2008)
Incentives and Sanctions, continued
Use contracts as behavior change toolEducate youth and family early and often
regarding the individualized nature of the program
Coordinate treatment and JDC case management plans to alleviate potential incentive/sanction conflicts
Exploration of current Incentive & Sanction process, list, and purpose
Behavioral Contract Example
Goal Behaviors/Tasks
Incentives Non-compliance
Sanction
Enroll in GED program
•Call or visit GED center by xxxxx date
•Praise•Recognition from Team•Appointment Calendar•XXXXXX
Failure to contact by XXXX
•Increased reporting to PO•Increase in curfew•EM
Contact Information
Jacqueline van Wormer, Ph.D.Washington State UniversitySAC 403ASpokane, WA(509) 628-2663jvanwormer@wsu.edujgvanwormer@gmail.com
Recommended