exemplary programs - matcp

Exemplary Programs

Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals

2017

Government Accountability Office

Michigan’s Drug Court Recidivism Reductions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Adult DWI Hybrid Juvenile

Pe

rce

nt

Re

con

vict

ed

Wit

hin

2 Y

ear

s

Michigan’s Mental Health Court Recidivism Reductions

0

10

20

30

40

50

Adult

Pe

rce

nt

Re

con

vict

ed

Wit

hin

2 Y

ear

s

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT FIDELITY TO THE MODEL?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

What Model???

• Drug Court and Veterans Treatment Court

– 10 Key Components

• DWI Court

– 10 Guiding Principles

• Juvenile Drug Court

– 16 Strategies in Practice

• Mental Health Court

– 10 Essential Elements


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Participants can be harmed

Bad programs’ data mixed with good dilutes the success of

programs

Health of our programs is directly tied to state and federal funding

True problem-solving courts shouldn’t have to compete for funding

against programs that do not follow the model

Participants, attorneys, and the public deserve to know what they

are getting when a court says they operate a problem-solving court

I’M CONVINCED FIDELITY MATTERS, BUT HOW CAN YOU TELL WHAT PROGRAMS FOLLOW THEIR MODEL?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Step 1Clearly identify standards and best practices

• Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals

• Mental Health Court Advisory Committee

• State Court Administrative Office


• Publishing 5 Manuals

– Adult Drug Court

• Drug court, DWI court, Hybrid, Family Dependency

– Mental Health Court

• Adult

– Veterans Treatment Court

– Juvenile Drug Court (after NCSC study)

– Juvenile Mental Health Court (after juvenile drug court)


• Standards

– Courts must implement the standards

– Standards are

• Statute

• The 10 Key Components

• Case law and precedent that are binding on Michigan courts


Example: MCL 600.1072(1)(b)

Mandatory periodic and random testing for the presence of any controlled substance or alcohol in a participant's blood, urine, or breath, using to the extent practicable the best available, accepted, and scientifically valid methods.


• Best Practices

– Courts should adhere to the best practices

– Best Practices are

• Supported by scientific research and data or non-binding case law

• Have been shown by empirical research to produce better outcomes than other practices and their use results in higher-quality programs.


Example: Test results, including the results of confirmation testing, are available to the drug court within forty-eight hours of sample collection.• A study of approximately seventy Drug Courts reported significantly

greater reductions in criminal recidivism and significantly greater cost benefits when the teams received drug and alcohol test results within forty-eight hours of sample collection. (Carey, Mackin, & Finigan, 2012)


• Promising Practices

– Courts should consider promising practices

– Promising practices are

• Not yet supported by scientific research or data

• Anecdotal evidence and experience suggests they are helpful in implementing the model


Example: In order to comply with the 48-hour results best practice, drug courts that use alcohol tethers or in-home units should require download at least 3 times per week.

Step 2Certify Programs

• Compare programs’ operations to the manuals and certify those that implement the standards and best practices.


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Participants can be harmed

Bad programs’ data mixed with good dilutes the success of

programs

Health of our programs is directly tied to state and federal funding

True problem-solving courts shouldn’t have to compete for funding

against programs that do not follow the model

Participants, attorneys, and the public deserve to know what they

are getting when a court says they operate a problem-solving court

IS CERTIFICATION JUST A PIECE OF PAPER?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Without Certification

• Cannot receive state grant funds

• Cannot receive a SCAO letter of support for federal/other grant funds

• Cannot issue an ignition interlock restricted driver’s license to participants

• Cannot collect program fees

• Cannot receive case dismissals under MCL 600.1076

• Not recognized by SCAO or MDOS

HOW WILL YOU DETERMINE WHETHER A COURT SHOULD BE CERTIFIED?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Background Research

• Illinois

• Indiana

• Pennsylvania

• Ohio

• Nebraska

• Oregon

• Idaho

• Colorado

• Montana

• South Dakota

• Tennessee

• Georgia

3 Methods of Certification

1. Peer Review (4 states)• Pros

– Review all courts annually– Learn from one another– Low cost

• Cons– Little consistency – Burden on trial courts– Training all courts – Funding competitors


2. SCAO Review (5 states)

• Pros

– Consistency

– Not funding competitors

– First-hand knowledge for funders

• Cons

– Expense

– Cannot review all annually


• DRUG/SOBRIETY COURTS • 61 Hybrid DWI/Drug Courts• 21 DWI Sobriety Courts• 13 Adult Drug Courts• 12 Family Dependency Courts

• MENTAL HEALTH COURTS • 26 Adult Mental Health Courts

• VETERANS TREATMENT COURTS• 25 Veterans Treatment Courts


3. Peer/SCAO Joint Review (3 states)• Pros

– Courts learn from one another– Consistency

• Cons– Cannot review all annually– Burden on trial courts– Higher cost– Training all courts– Funding competitors

HOW DO I REQUEST CERTIFICATION?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Certification Process

• April, 2017 – Certification application opens

• June, 2017 – Certification application closes

• September, 2017 – Awards and provisional certification


• June, 2018 – Submit updated self-assessment

• September, 2018 – Award and provisional or continued certification



• June, 2017 – Certification application closes

• September, 2017 – Awards and provisional certification


• June, 2018 – Submit updated self-assessment

• September, 2018 – Award and provisional or continued certification


FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021


FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

Cycle B Provisional until 2019

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4FY 2022

FY 2023

CERTIFIED!Recertify

WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT DURING A CERTIFICATION REVIEW?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


• Participant handbook

• Policy and procedure manual

• MOU

• Interview– Team members

– Volunteer participants

• Observe team staffing

• Observe court review hearing

Extranet

• To obtain username and password, e-mail

[email protected]

• Discussion board

• Example forms/manuals

• SCAO manuals

mailto:[email protected]

WHAT IF THE CERTIFICATION REVIEW IDENTIFIES PROBLEMS?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


• Report documenting what needs to be addressed before certification can occur

• Technical assistance

• Return visit/remote review

WHAT IF WE STILL DON’T RECEIVE CERTIFICATION?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


• Reapply in June

• Appeal

IS THE PROCESS THE SAME FOR VETERANS AND MENTAL HEALTH COURTS?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


FY 2018

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2019

FY 2020

FY 2021

FY 2022

WHAT’S THE BASIS OF GRANT AWARDS?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Grant Awards

• Prior spending history

• Data in DCCMIS

• Number of participants

• Responses on the certification application

• Request and need

DO WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT ALL OF THE BEST PRACTICES TO BE CERTIFIED?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Best Practices Implementation

• Critical

• Aspirational

IS HELP AVAILABLE?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Technical Assistance

• Break-out sessions on many of the individual chapters for next two days

• SCAO/MATCP/MHCAC trainings planned throughout the year

• Request individual technical assistance

Technical AssistanceCall or E-mail

Regional Administrator

Regional Administrator will

Contact Jessica Parks

Jessica Contacts MATCP/MHCAC

Review Need and Match to Resources

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS ARE BASED ON INNOVATION, ARE YOU TRYING TO CRUSH THAT?

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

SCAO Goal

• Certify all programs within 5 years!

– Eliminated FY 17 site visits

– Shortened applications

– Reducing progress reports

– More training/technical assistance

Vision

A state where every problem-solving court

is exemplary.

Take Away Message

• More guidance

• Stronger data for funders

• Peace of mind for transfers

• Clear and simple applications

• More training opportunities

• Questions? [email protected]

exemplary programs - matcp

Documents