CRITICAL ELEMENTS AND STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION
Assessment of Program Progress in
Addressing the Key Components
Although self-evaluation has
proven its worth to individual drug courts, its most important result has been
to produce knowledge about lessons learned and critical components or
elements that are essential for success and institutionalization. The following section presents the
current ten (10) national Key Components of Drug Courts and the JRDC's condition
on each to identify successful accomplishment of both programmatic and
organizational objectives.
The “key components” presented
below detail 10 characteristics of drug courts that have “worked.” The evaluation team also considered
recent national publications containing summative information on juvenile
re-entry drug courts.
Each presentation is then supplemented with findings on the status of
implementation of the JRDC
Category
Scheme for the
Key Components
l
Program Planning and
Philosophy
l
Program
Process
l
Program
Services
l
Analysis and Program
Modification
*******************************************************************
PROGRAM
PLANNING AND PHILOSOPHY
The JRDC has developed a management approach based on sound strategic
planning and continually reviews its program design and operations. This has kept the program on track and
permitted the identification of unanticipated needs and programming gaps. JRDC’s ability to use this information
as a basis for future decisions has led to many enhancements of the program over
time.
Key
Component # 1
Treatment Integration
Drug courts integrate alcohol and other
drug treatment services with justice system case processing. The JRDC has fully integrated
delivery of treatment services into its program design and implementation
plan. The program began with
limited progress reporting from treatment providers, but now fully monitors
treatment delivery and progress reporting through the case processing system of
the drug court. The Drug Court Coordinator ensures all services are performed,
along with all ancillary services, and reports – including recommendations for
sanctions and/or incentives - are submitted for judicial review.
Key
Component # 2
Prosecution and Defense
Using a non-adversarial approach,
prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting
participants’ due process rights. Interaction, as well as high levels of
cooperation exists between prosecutors, defense, and the judge. In Addition, the Public Defender’s
Office is a strong supporter of the JRDC Program.
Key
Component # 10
Partnerships for Local Support
Forging partnerships among drug courts,
public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and
enhances drug court effectiveness.
Orange
County has a long-standing history of
cooperation among agencies and organizations. The current drug court judge has made it
a priority to expand support for the program through public forums and briefings
that have produced many benefits for the court. Linkages to law enforcement, probation,
and correction’s agencies are exemplary aspects of the program, providing many
enhancements to meet the needs of the court and its clients. The JRDC is attempting to expand
services to its clients by building bridges to health and community-based
leaders. Of course, this is a
critical area to fully develop a sustainment plan for the future operation of
the court, which is under continuous development by the Drug Court Coordinator
and the drug court team.
Notably, the JRDC has accomplished a major goal of including
members of the law enforcement agencies in the program operations. This has not only resulted in a number
of program enhancements, but has led to better understanding of drug court
philosophy among essential partners in the community.
*******************************************************************
PROGRAM
PROCESS
Key
Component # 3
Early ID and Placement
Eligible participants are identified early
and promptly placed in the drug court program.
The JRDC has successfully established a clear process for identifying and
working together to select and enter defendants as their clients. The agreements codified by formal
contracts ensure a basic understanding between the JRDC and participants and
provide for rapid initiation of clients into court activities. The initial program design called for a
target client population of 36.
The drug court team matches their program design for recommending
whether potential candidates should enter the program. An integrated referral report is
presented to the judge, including accurate and clear recommendations for
judicial review.
Key
Component # 6
Response to Compliance
A
coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’
compliance. The JRDC drug court team has developed an
approach, through its program design, to determine client progress through
weekly staffing sessions, including all team members, to coordinate their
strategies for status hearings, monitoring sanctions and determining the impact
of treatment services. All clients
are reviewed weekly and separate reviews are completed. The drug court team has developed an
approach to establishing effective means to applying sanctions and incentives in
response to clients’ performance.
JRDC has been very successful
in establishing collaborative relationships with probation, corrections and law
enforcement. All of these agencies
are committed to serving the court and supervision is covered through a
coordinated effort that supports the objectives of the program.
Key
Component # 7
Judicial Interaction
Ongoing judicial interaction with each
drug court participant is essential.
The JRDC is intended to be a multi-faceted treatment program with
weekly or bi-weekly judicial reviews.
In reality, the direct intervention of the judge is more intense than
initially designed, and explains many of the outcomes produced by the
court. The JRDC has programmed the
needs for judicial review at each phase in the process.
The direct intervention of the
judge is an important element in court settings. However, as one aspect of the drug court
philosophy, judicial review depends on the other two – treatment and supervision
– to support decisions by the court.
Many enhancements have been made for accurate reporting on compliance
with supervision and treatment progress that affords the judge an ability to
make the best decisions for the clients.
*******************************************************************
PROGRAM
SERVICES
Key
Component # 4
Continuum of Services
Drug courts provide access to a continuum
of alcohol, drug and other related treatment and rehabilitation
services. The JRDC has
defined phases and treatment modalities and there is a clear understanding among
team members concerning how individual treatment plans are developed and
implemented. Observations and
interviews confirm that a continuum of services is available and believed to be
effective. Notably, treatment plans are designed to meet the needs of the
clients, rather than fitting all clients into a single approach, the court has
shown extensive innovation in developing treatment plans for successful
rehabilitation of diverse participants.
Key
Component # 5
Drug Testing
Frequent alcohol and other drug testing
monitor abstinence. Formal and random drug/ alcohol testing
and procedures are well established and fully meet program needs. The JRDC has met this aspect of
implementation in what appears to be a successful, cost-effective manner.
*******************************************************************
ANALYSIS
AND PROGRAM MODIFICATION
Key
Component # 8
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation measure the
achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness. The JRDC has made a continuing
commitment to assessing its program since its initiation. The drug court team monitors program and
participant progress on a continuous basis. The ability and capability to collect
and maintain data for assessment purposes is fully developed. Plans are underway
for future, more intense evaluation activities. Additional areas for assessment are
highlighted in the recommendation section below.
Key
Component # 9
Continuing Education
Continuing interdisciplinary education
promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. The Drug Court Coordinator and
drug court team members, including the judge, have attended national training
programs and two National Conferences with NADCP.
POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENTS FOR
FUTURE DIRECTION
State and local agencies are committed to conducting more
analytical work on innovative drug court approaches and the long- term impact of
drug courts on local jurisdictions.
Future process and impact evaluations will also include other issues,
since many drug courts involve community-wide problems. Improved quantitative and
qualitative measures of performance and impact have opened the door for more
longitudinal research and analysis. A comprehensive reference section is
attached to this report that highlights research and evaluation efforts to
date.
It is important to note that the Orange County Juvenile
Re-Entry Drug Court (JRDC) Team began its operations before receiving a federal
grant and has progressed far in its first year of existence. Many early problems have been worked
out, and corrective actions have taken place. The drug court program design
developed by the team presents a solid program logic that should continue to
produce successful outcomes. Future
progress can only enhance the activities of the program to further meet its
intent and design.
JRDC expects to
attain full performance, in terms of number of participants and completed
program design, by January 2003.
The total number of clients are projected to be 36 active across all
phases of the program. Most clients
are close to being young adults and this is not a voluntary
program.
All team members
stated that the roles and responsibilities are drastically different between the
juvenile drug court and the re-entry drug court. Major program initiatives and
corrections during the first year include:
1.
Reviews
from once a month to weekly.
2.
Established a pilot program starting in June
2001 through October 2001 Before the DCPO grant was
awarded.
3.
DJJ
Juvenile Probation manages and ensures integrity of drug-testing
activities.
4.
Dedicated treatment program and activities
that only involve JRDC clients.
5.
Family
component developing and under review by Team.
6.
Aftercare is currently a function of the
Treatment Provider, but further review of this component is under
way.
All team members
stated that the key to selection of clients is the quality of the Transition
Plan, which includes documentation of all interventions impacting the client
while in commitment. Success of the
program relies on an excellent link to DJJ Commitment facilities and staff, with
monthly reviews while incarcerated and development of a Pre-Disposition Report
60 days from Re-entry.
Excellent
Orientation program for entering clients and as they advance through the phases
of the program. Many practices are adapted because the JRDC follows in the
footsteps of Orange County’s very successful Juvenile Drug Court
Program, which is now a NADCP Mentor Program.
The JRDC receives
strong community-based support for vocational training with Home Builders
Institute. Strong community
stakeholders have been identified, including the Sheriff, Orange County
Coalition for Drug Free Communities, and the
County Commission.
This analysis identifies needs
for fine-tuning some operations and/or procedures to direct future
implementation by the JRDC. The
drug court coordinator has completed the essential task of pulling the initial
policies and procedures together and producing a drug court manual, making it a
guide for the team to remain consistent with elements of program design.
Finally, if the JRDC is to be sustained, the ability to integrate the court
activities into the existing criminal justice system and the community, and
adapt to changes in their environment is critical.
After
one year, JRDC is operating to meet the objectives established to guide
implementation, while expanding its program and introducing new objectives. It is entering a period of final
fine-tuning its activities and organization. In terms of understanding the program,
however, four conclusions became apparent during this process
evaluation:
§
The drug court program
model designed for the JRDC was fully developed after one year of
implementation. Completing the
model is a significant achievement of the program, and permits the drug court
team, as well as each of its components, to begin meeting their objectives on a
continuous basis. Importantly,
program development now focuses on enhancements to the model, ensures the
integrity of the design, and improves delivery.
§
The drug court team has
done an excellent job in defining individual efforts to integrate and coordinate
all aspects of supervision, treatment and judicial review, and to update the
program’s strategic and implementation plans. However, the drug court coordinator,
once clients begin graduating from the drug court, needs to complete the final
policy and procedures manual reflecting changes that have occurred since the
production of the initial policy and procedures manual.
§
More attention should be
made in building a network throughout the county to strengthen JRDC efforts in
meeting their objectives. Although a number of initiatives have been put into
place, valuable community resources should be tapped to assist in enhancing the
program.
Potential
Enhancements for Future Direction
The JRDC began operation in May
2001. Since then, it has attempted to improve and enhance its operations. The JRDC continues to build an ever more
comprehensive approach, given the opportunities and constraints faced by the
court, the members of the JRDC team, and the community at large. Future plans for improving the JRDC
should consider the following recommendations as they seek to improve the
process and components of the Juvenile Re-Entry Dug
Court:
1. The JRDC program needs to continue to focus on
taking credit for what they are accomplishing and the various impacts of the
program on the criminal justice system and the community. A need exists to systematically document
the overall and specific impacts and successes of the program. A focus should also be put on capturing
the best practices being implemented within the program and to recognize areas
that need improvement.
2.
General Considerations: Although the Drug Court Coordinator has
already pulled together a working policy and procedures manual that has been
communicated to other team members, there remains the need to complete a final
version of this policy and procedures manual. This will be done after clients
start graduating from the drug court, after which sufficient time has passed and
perspective gained to create a final drug court manual. Built on the consensus
of the team, the manual should provide guidance and consistency with elements of
program design. This will also
enhance the ability for future assessments of the program against a formal
program model and implementation plan.
3.
The JRDC
should consider producing many of its materials in a Spanish-language text. Many of the clients are Spanish speaking
and this would help a great deal with their orientation and compliance with the
program. This might be accomplished
through the assistance of a local college’s Spanish Department, perhaps through
having the manual translated as part of a class project.
4.
Future
Evaluation Activities: The
process and outcome evaluations will be conducted as the next formal evaluation
steps. A feasible plan for collecting and analyzing the impact of the drug court
on one year post-program recidivism outcomes focuses on:
· The collection of data on re-arrests, reconviction, and/or reincarceration for a period of one year following drug court
completion (or dropout). However, the JRDC intends to track graduations for a minimum of three (3) years. It also hopes to
establish sources of data for other post-program outcomes (such as drug use, employment and earnings, health care, drug
treatment participation, etc.).
|
· Agreements exist, often established during the implementation of the Juvenile Re-Entry Drug Court Program, for sources
of data on re-arrests and other outcome measures. The drug court team will be charged with collecting and maintaining and
defining the final measures, which will be measures for individual rather than aggregate outcome data.
|
· As noted above, based upon comparability and offender characteristics, a comparison group for measuring the
relative change in post-program recidivism outcomes, has been identified. The comparison group is a matched group similar
to the drug court participants.
|
|
The foundation built through this initial evaluation forms a baseline of information that
the JRDC can use to design a thorough evaluation of the impact of the
program. The design should include the final development
of performance measures and schedules for the evaluation.Importantly,
a major payoff could provide necessary results and findings to help design
methods that lead to sustainability.
|
REFERENCES
Drug Court Guidelines and Previous Studies,
Evaluation and Methodology
Bickman, L., ed. (1990) Advances in Program Theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation
Series, no. 47. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
(1992) Drugs, Crime, and the Justice
System. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Cole, Galen E. (1999)
“Advancing the Development and Application of Theory-based Evaluation in the
Practice of Public Health.” American Journal of
Evaluation. Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 453-470.
Cooper, Caroline, Shanie Bartlett, Michelle Shaw and Kayla Yang. (1997) 1997 Drug Court Survey Report:
Participants Perspectives. Office of Justice
Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Washington D.C.
Cooper Caroline, Shanie Bartlett, Michelle Shaw and Kayla Yang. (1997) 1997 Drug Court Survey Report:
Treatment Provider Services and Perspectives. Office of Justice Programs, Drug Court Clearinghouse and
Technical Assistance Project. Washington D.C.
General Accounting Office.
(1997) Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and
Results. United States General
Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
Harrell, Adele, and Barbara
Smith. (1997) "Evaluation of the District of
Columbia Superior Court Drug
Intervention Program: Focus Group Interviews." Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
Hora, Peggy and Schma, William.
(1998) "Therapeutic Jurisprudence". American Judicature Society. Vol. 82(1), July/Aug.
Kirchner, Robert A. (2001) “A
Realistic Approach to Drug Court Evaluation,” Presented at the 7th Annual Juvenile Re-entry Drug Court Training Conference, New Orleans, LA, May
30-June 2.
Kirchner, Robert A. (2000)
"Program Theory and Evaluation: The Critical Linkages," Presented at the Annual
Conference of the American Evaluation Association, “Evaluation 2000,” held in
Waikiki, Hawaii, November 1-4, 2000
Kirchner, Robert A. (1999)
“Creating and Sustaining State and Local Evaluation Capacities: Program
Evaluation Tools for the New Century,” Presented at the Annual Conference of the
American Evaluation Association, Evaluation ‘99 - The Territory Ahead:
Foundations and Frontiers, held in Orlando, FL, November 4-7, 1999.
Kirchner, Robert A. (1996) Improving the Capacity to Identify Effective
Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines and Criteria for the Nomination of
Effective Programs. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice.
Kirchner, Robert A. (1995)
“Making Programs Whole: Integrating Implementation with Assessment and
Evaluation.” In The State of Corrections 1995. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
Kirchner, Robert A., and Roger
K. Przybylski (2000) "Evaluation and Criminal Justice Program Theory: The
Critical Linkages," Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society
of Criminology, held in San Francisco, CA, November 15-18, 2000.
Kirchner, Robert A., Roger K. Przybylski, and Ruth A. Cardella. (1994) Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal
Justice Programs. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice.
Kirchner,Robert A., and Kenneth
D. Robinson (2002) Citizen Potawatomi Nation Drug
Court Program: Evaluating a Multi-Jurisdictional Program. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.
Kirchner, Robert A., and
Kenneth D. Robinson (2000) "Preventing Reincarceration of Felony Offenders:
Reason for Optimism Based on Ten-Year Treatment Outcome Data," Presented at the
Annual Conference of the American Society of Criminology, held in San Francisco,
CA, November 15-18, 2000.
Kirchner, Robert A., and
Kenneth D. Robinson (2000) An Evaluation
of the Volusia County, Florida Drug
Court:
Assessing the Effectiveness of the Treatment Component. Annapolis, MD: Glacier Consulting, Inc.
Kirchner, Robert A., Kenneth D.
Robinson and W. Clinton Terry III (2002) Success and Future of the Orange County Drug
Court:
Evaluating Innovation in Florida’s
Ninth Judicial Circuit. Annapolis, MD:
Glacier Consulting, Inc.
Leukefeld, C.G., and F.R. Tims (1994) “Drug abuse treatment in prisons and jails" Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 10:77-84.
Little, Greg, and Kenneth D.
Robinson, Katherine D. Burnette, and Stephen Swan (1999) “Successful Ten-Year
Outcome Data on MRT Treated Felony Offenders” Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review Vol. 8, No. 1.
Little, G.L., and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Understanding and Treating The
Antisocial Substance Abuser. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books
Little, G.L. and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Family Support, Responsibly
Fulfilling A Life’s Obligation. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books
Little, G.L. and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Making Changes for Good. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books
Little, G.L., Burnette, K.D.,
and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Effective Counseling
Approaches. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books
Little, G.L., Burnette, K.D.,
and Robinson, K.D. (1994). Crisis Intervention. Memphis: Eagle Wing Books
Little, Greg, and Kenneth D.
Robinson (1988) “Moral Reconation Therapy: a systematic, step-by-step treatment
system for treatment resistant clients” Psychological Reports 62, pp.
135-151.
Marlowe, Douglas B. and Kirby,
Kimberly C. (1999) "Effective Use of Sanctions in Drug Courts: Lessons from
Behavioral Research". National Drug
Court Institute Review. Vol. 2(1)
Summer.
Maxfield, Michael G. (2000) Guide to Frugal Evaluation for Criminal
Justice. Forthcoming.
Maxfield, Michael G., and Earl Babbie (1998) Research Methods for
Criminal Justice and Criminology. (Second Edition) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McLaughlin, John A., and
Gretchen B. Jordan. (1998) “Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s
performance story.” Evaluation and Program Planning. Vol.
22, pp. 65-72.
Migdail, K., ed. (1995) The 1995 Behavioral Outcomes and Guidelines
Sourcebook: A Progress Report and Resource Guide on Mental Health and Substance
Management. New York: Faulkner & Gray.
Miller, Delbert S. (Series
Editor) (1997-2000) Blueprints for
Violence Prevention. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado.
Miller, William R. (1992) “The
Effectiveness of Treatment for Substance Abuse: Reasons for Optimism” Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment. Vol. 9,
pp.93-102.
Mohr, Lawrence B. (1996) Impact Analysis for Program
Evaluation. 2nd. ed. Newbury, CA: Sage Publications.
Mumola, Cristopher. (1999) Substance Abuse and Treatment, State
and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
(NADCP). (1997) Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. OJP. Washington D.C.
National Institute of Drug Abuse (1999) Principles of Drug Addiction
Treatment. Washington, D.C.: NIH Publication No. 99-4180.
National Institute of Drug Abuse. (1993) How Good sf Your Drug Abuse Treatment
Program? DHHS Publication ADM 93-3608. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Office for Substance Abuse
Prevention. (1992) Cultural Competence for Evaluators: A Guide
for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention Practitioners Working With
Ethnic/Racial Communities. Cultural Competence Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Olson,David E., et.al. (1994) Documenting the extent and Nature of Drug
and Violent Crime: Developing Jurisdiction-Specific Profiles of the Criminal
Justice System. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice.
Pawson, Ray, and Nick Tilley
(1997) Realistic Evaluation. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Przybylski, Roger K. (1995)
“Evaluation as an Important Tool in Criminal Justice Planning.” The Compiler. Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority.
Ralph, John, and M., Christine
Dwyer (1988) Making the Case: Evidence of
Program Effectiveness. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and
Development, U.S. Department
of Education.
Robinson, Kenneth D., and
Michelle A. Shaw (July 2000) A Process
Evaluation of the Blackfeet Tribal Drug
Court. Memphis, TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc.
Robinson, Kenneth D., and
Michelle A. Shaw (June 2000) A Process
and Output Evaluation of the Macon County, Illinois Drug
Court. Memphis, TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc.
Robinson, Kenneth D., and
Michelle A. Shaw (April 2000) A Process
Evaluation of the Poarch Creek Tribal Drug
Court. Memphis, TN: Correctional Counseling, Inc.
Robinson, Kenneth D., Michelle
A. Shaw (1999) A Process and Output Evaluation of the Volusia County, Florida Drug
Court. Memphis, TN:
Correctional Counseling, Inc.
Robinson, Kenneth D., and
Michelle A. Shaw (2000) “An Evaluation Summary of the Volusia County, Florida Drug Court,” Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review, Vol.9.
Rogers, Patricia J., et.al.,
eds. (2000) " Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities." New Directions for Evaluation.
Number 87, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Satel, Sally. (1998)
"Observational Study on Courtroom Dynamics in Selected Drug Courts". The National Drug Court Institute
Review. Vol. 1(1), Summer.
Tribal Law and Policy
Institute. (1999) Healing to Wellness Courts: A Preliminary Overview of
Tribal Drug Courts. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Programs.
Weiss, Carol H. (1995) “Nothing
As Practical As Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive
Community Initiatives for Children and Families.” In Connell, James P., et. al. Editors New Approaches to Evaluating Community
Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute.
Wholey, Joseph S., et.al.
(1977) If You Don’t Care Where You Get
To, Then It Doesn’t Matter Which Way You Go. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
