SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DRUG COURT PROCESS EVALUATION

Transcription

1 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DRUG COURT PROCESS EVALUATION May 2013 Santa Barbara Substance Abuse Treatment Court The University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) Drug Court Research Team conducted a process evaluation of the Santa Barbara County Drug Court that is held in the city of Santa Barbara. Team meeting observations, court session observations, and stakeholder surveys and interviews were conducted. Results of this evaluation are presented and discussed.

2 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation S A N T A B A R B A R A S A T C UCSB Evaluation Team University of California, Santa Barbara Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology Santa Barbara, CA Merith Cosden, PhD cosden@education.ucsb.edu Jill Sharkey, PhD jsharkey@education.ucsb.edu Kayleigh L. Welsh, MA kwelsh@education.ucsb.edu Megan Donahue, MA mdonahue@education.ucsb.edu Jenny Hughes, MA jhughes@education.ucsb.edu Justin Gauthier, BA jgauthier@education.ucsb.edu This project was funded by the Santa Barbara County Probation Department, 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act. Page 1

3 Contents Santa Barbara SATC INTRODUCTION... 4 What are drug courts?... 4 Santa Barbara County Drug Court... 4 Table 1: 10 Key Components of Drug Courts... 5 Best Practices of Drug Courts... 6 PURPOSE... 8 Purpose of the Report... 8 METHODS... 8 Data Collection... 8 Measurements... 8 Team Meeting Observations... 8 Courtroom Observations... 8 Stakeholder Interviews & Surveys... 8 TEAM MEETING OBSERVATIONS... 9 Purpose and Procedures... 9 Measurement... 9 Data Collection... 9 Results... 9 Case Discussions... 9 Team Cohesion Researcher Observations Summary COURTROOM OBSERVATIONS Purpose and Procedures Measurement Data Collection Results Time Clients Judicial Interactions Noncompliance and Sanctions Recognition and Incentives Summary STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Purpose and procedures Measurement Data Collection Results Individual Roles Judge Page 2

4 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Coordinator District Attorney Public Defender/Defense Attorney Probation Department Treatment Provider Mental Health Treatment Providers Law Enforcement Team Cohesion Diversity Gender-Specific Practices Culture-Specific Practices Courtroom Practices Most Effective Practices Areas for Improvement Summary STAKEHOLDER SURVEYS Purpose and procedures Measurement Data Collection Results Eligibility and Program Components Therapeutic and Individualized Jurisprudence Graduated Sanctions Team Collaboration and Communication Community Support Data Driven Program Development Defense and Prosecution Collaboration Summary CONCLUSIONS Summary of findings Future Directions APPENDIX REFERENCES Page 3

5 Introduction Santa Barbara SATC W H A T A R E D R U G C O U R T S? The revolving door of arrest and recidivism for offenders with drug abuse problems stimulated the criminal justice system to become involved in the treatment as well as punishment of these offenders. Drug treatment courts are a major form of this therapeutic jurisprudence (Hora, 2002). Drug treatment courts are designed to reduce drug use and related criminal activity by offering drug offenders the opportunity for court-supervised, community-based, drug and alcohol treatment in lieu of incarceration. Since their inception in Florida in 1989, drug courts have expanded to over 1,000 courts nationally with representation in every state, while similar programs have emerged in other countries. S A N T A B A R B A R A C O U N T Y D R U G C O U R T The Santa Barbara County, Substance Abuse Treatment Court (SATC) was among the first 200 Drug Courts implemented in the United States, and has served over 1,000 clients since its inception in The SATC follows the Key Component guidelines established by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (see Table 1). A Policy Council comprised of the Presiding Judge, District Attorney, Public Defender, Probation Officer, and representatives from treatment providers meets monthly to develop and oversee SATC operations, determining eligibility criteria, treatment requirements, and graduation policies. The SATC is a pre-plea program for adults charged with a misdemeanor or felony who demonstrate a need for substance abuse treatment. Offenders are ineligible if they have been charged with a violent crime, the distribution of drugs, or a sex crime. In additional to meeting eligibility criteria, clients must be determined suitable (i.e., motivated and able to benefit from treatment) by the treatment team, which includes the Judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation officer and treatment provider. Programs in North and South Santa Barbara County (Santa Maria and Santa Barbara) follow similar treatment protocols. These protocols include case management, relapse prevention groups, drug treatment groups with the MATRIX, educational and vocational assessment and training, and drug testing. In addition, clients have regular court supervision and meetings with their probation officer. The program is approximately 18 months long with five phases of treatment graded in intensity. Phase 1: Stabilization & Assimilation (minimum 10 weeks) Phase 2: Recovery Plan Development (minimum 10 weeks) Phase 3: Reality and Life Skills Development (minimum 10 weeks) Phase 4: Ongoing treatment (minimum 12 weeks) Phase 5: Expanded Life Skills and Graduation Preparation (minimum 18 weeks) Clients successfully completed the program when they met their treatment goals and tested negative for substances for at least 45 consecutive days. Page 4

6 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation T A B L E 1 : 1 0 K E Y C O M P O N E N T S O F D R U G C O U R T S 1. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. 2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants rehabilitation needs. 3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program. 4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. 5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing. 6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants compliance. 7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential. 8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness. 9. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. 10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness. SOURCE: Office of Justice Programs (1997/2004). Page 5

7 Santa Barbara SATC B E S T P R A C T I C E S O F D R U G C O U R T S Drug Courts were developed prior to research to support their effectiveness. When the 10 Key Components were articulated, they were based on observations of drug court practices that appeared to work. Research has followed to study these practices and empirically determine their effectiveness. In a review of this research, Carey, Mackin, and Finigan (2012) studied 69 drug courts for whether or not they engaged in practices that were related to each of the 10 Key Components, comparing recidivism for those that did and did not employ that practice. Drug court practices were considered Best Practices if there were 40 or more drug courts that employed that practice, and the analysis yielded significant reductions in recidivism. Drug court practices were considered Promising Practices if there were 20 or more drug courts that employed that practice, and the analysis yielded significant reductions in recidivism. The results indicated that significant reductions in recidivism were related to 28 drug court practices, each associated with one of the Key Components examined. The results are described below. Table 2 shows the percentage of courts that responded positively to each of those activities. Key Component 1. The analysis found that significant reductions in recidivism were related to law enforcement being involved as part of the drug court team; judge, attorneys, treatment program coordinator, probation, treatment representatives, and law enforcement attending staffing; and the judge, attorneys, treatment representatives, probation, coordinator, and law enforcement attending court sessions. In addition, treatment representatives keeping in contact regularly with the court was also related to significant reductions in recidivism. Key Component 2. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to the drug court allowing participants to enter on nondrug related charges. Key Component 3. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to a lapse of 50 days or less between arrest and drug court program entry, and a drug court program caseload of 125 participants or less. Key Component 4. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to working with two or fewer treatment programs; mandating participants to attend a particular number of individual treatment sessions; offering gender specific services, mental health treatment, parenting classes, or family/domestic relations counseling; and a minimum program length of 12 months or longer. Key Component 5. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to drug court programs that received their drug test results back in two or fewer days. Key Component 6. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to drug court team members being given written guidelines for administering sanctions. In addition, drug courts that did not allow someone other than the judge to impose sanctions on a participant outside of the court sessions saw significant reductions in participant recidivism. Key Component 7. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to: biweekly court hearings for participants in Phase 1; the judge spending 3 or more minutes on average with each participant; and the judge s term being indefinite. Key Component 8. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to reviewing data, reviewing program statistics, and using the results of program evaluations to modify program operations. Key Component 9. Significant reductions in recidivism were related to requiring new drug court employees to participate in formalized training. Key component 10. No significant reductions in recidivism were found. Page 6

8 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Table 2 Key Component Drug Court Practices Yes 1 Law enforcement is a member of the drug court team 45% 1 Judge, both attorneys, treatment, program coordinator, and probation attend 42% staffings 1 A representative from treatment attends drug court team meetings 39% 1 Coordinator attends drug court team meetings 38% 1 Law enforcement attends drug court team meetings 45% 1 Judge, attorneys, treatment, probation, and coordinator attend court sessions 42% (status review hearings) 1 A representative from treatment attends court sessions (status review 38% hearings) 1 Law enforcement attends court sessions (status review hearings) 53% 1 Treatment communicates with court via 46% 2 Drug Court allows non-drug charges. 41% 3 The time between arrest and program entry is 50 days or less 39% 3 Program caseload (number of individuals actually participating at any one 40% time) is less than The drug court works with two or fewer treatment agencies 40% 4 The drug court has guidelines on the frequency of individual treatment 41% sessions that a participant must receive 4 The drug court offers gender specific services 36% 4 The drug court offers mental health treatment 36% 4 The drug court offers parenting classes 38% 4 The drug court offers family/domestic relations counseling 38% 4 The minimum length of the drug court program is 12 months or more 47% 5 Drug test results are back in two days or less 38% 6 Team members are given a copy of the guidelines for sanctions. 45% 7 Participants have status review sessions every two weeks in first phase 46% 7 Judge spends an average of 3 minutes or greater per participant during 43% status review hearings 7 The judge s term is indefinite 35% 8 The results of program evaluations have led to modifications in drug court 37% operations 8 Review of the data and/or regular reporting of program statistics has led to 41% modifications in drug court operations 9 All new hires to the drug court complete a formal training or orientation 40% *Table adapted from: yes_to_no_with_n_sizes.pdf Page 7

9 Purpose Santa Barbara SATC P U R P O S E O F T H E R E P O R T The purpose of this study was to describe the pre-court staffing process and the courtroom process followed by the Santa Barbara Substance Abuse Treatment Court (SATC). The evaluation focused on processes associated with the 10 Key Components of drug courts, to determine the extent to which the court adhered to these practices. Methods D A T A C O L L E C T I O N Data were collected in two ways: through observation of staffing and court procedures by outside evaluators, and through interview and survey responses from the key stakeholders (team members) themselves. Three sets of measures were used: two sets of observation instruments (one to assess the process of the team staffing prior to the court session and one to assess the court process itself) and a self-report instrument with a structured survey and a semi-structured interview. By obtaining information from multiple sources we were able to provide stronger documentation of program activities. These are described below. M E A S U R E M E N T S Several measurements were adapted from previous process evaluation materials and/or constructed by the researchers for the purposes of this evaluation. Measurement tools were used to structure observations of team meetings and courtroom hearings, as well as to obtain open-ended and survey information from stakeholders. Instruments were adapted from current studies (Carey et al., 2012; Cumming & Wong, 2008; Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, & Lindquist, 2011a; Rossman et al., 2011b; Satel, 1998) and were developed to meet the goals of this project of providing multiple sources of information to determine the extent to which the program met the Key Components related to program effectiveness. All forms are attached in the Appendix. Team Meeting Observations Standardized observations of the drug court team s staffing were conducted by the program evaluators. Information was recorded on time spent talking about each participant, topics discussed during the staffing meeting, the team process and team cohesion. Courtroom Observations Standardized observations of the courtroom process were conducted by the program evaluators. Information was recorded on time spent on each participant, participant characteristics, judicial interactions with participants, and the use of sanctions, recognition, and incentives with participants. Stakeholder Interviews & Surveys A structured interview and survey of the drug court process was conducted with which each team member. Respondents were asked about the role of each team member and about aspects of the court process that corresponded to each of the 10 Key Components. They were also asked about the strengths of the program and areas they would like to see improved. Page 8

10 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Team Meeting Observations P U R P O S E A N D P R O C E D U R ES Drug court team meetings were observed in order to understand and describe the staffing process. Areas noted were time spent talking about each of the participants, the topics discussed, and team cohesion. Measurement An instrument was adapted from several sources in the drug court literature, to assess time spent discussing each case, as well as the content of the discussions, including whether or not the team talked about treatment progress, case management, vocational and educational goals, drug urine analyses (negative and positive), sanctions and incentives. Researchers also coded different facets of team cohesion. Data Collection Data were collected from seven team meetings for SATC in Santa Barbara. Team meetings were observed at Santa Barbara s Figueroa Courthouse. One to three researchers attended each staffing. Researchers attempted to remain as inconspicuous as possible during their observations. Team meetings typically took place for an hour before noon, with the court proceedings following in the afternoon (approximately 1PM to 5PM). R E S U L T S The SATC team meetings were held on Tuesday and Thursday mornings with the court processing of clients later that same afternoon. Total time of SATC staffing observed was 95 minutes. In attendance at all of the meetings observed were the judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, treatment liaison, and probation officer. The presence of law enforcement (i.e., bailiff) was observed in 71% of the meetings, as well. Observations also indicated that the team jointly ran the meetings, with no one person being perceived as the predominant person guiding the staffing. Case Discussions Researchers coded the staffing proceedings for all SATC participants who were discussed during the team meetings. Staffing procedures for SATC clients were observed for a total of 95 minutes covering 57 cases. Average time spent on each case was 1.67 minutes with a range from 1 to 7 minutes. Other calendars were discussed alongside the SATC cases; however only the data pertaining to the SATC cases are reported here. Observation Total staffing time observed (SATC cases only) Cases coded Average time per case Range in time per case Number 95 minutes 57 cases 1.67 minutes 1 min. 7 min. The topics most frequently discussed were treatment progress, substance use progress, and supervision/case management progress. Other topics included use of sanctions, positive and negative drug tests, mental health progress, incentives, and vocational goals. Discussion topics % of cases Treatment progress 94.7% Substance use progress 66.7% Supervision/case management progress 49.1% Sanctions 29.8% Positive urinalysis 15.8% Negative urinalysis 14.0% Mental health progress 12.3% Incentives 5.3% Vocational/employment goals 3.5% Page 9

11 Santa Barbara SATC Team Cohesion Researchers completed a scale that examined aspects of team cohesion. The questions were rated on a scale of 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Results indicated that the team was perceived as respectful toward each other, respectful toward clients, as sharing information freely, working as a team, and as open with each other (see below): Question Rating Did there appear to be a mutual respect between the agencies? 4.4 Did team members share information and knowledge freely with one another? 4.3 Did there appear to be a general sense of teamwork and partnership between the team members? 4.8 Did there appear to be an openness of information and communication between the team members? 4.3 Did there appear to be a respect for clients being discussed? 4.6 Researcher Observations In addition to the data recorded from the research instruments, researchers cataloged a few observations not captured by the instruments. First, there were a number of court calendars discussed during the same staffing. Although members of the team seemed aware of the treatment court in which each client was participating, there were no breaks between cases in different calendars and new observers found it hard to differentiate these calendars. Further, although most of the SATC cases were seen on Tuesdays, a few were also seen on Thursdays, amid a larger number of other cases. Second, attorneys were coming in and out of the team meetings, some to request that their client be considered for a treatment court, and others to communicate about other proceedings. These attorneys did not appear concerned about interrupting the SATC staffing, suggesting a lack of understanding or buy-in to the SATC process. Despite these structural problems, however, the team itself appeared genuinely concerned with finding solutions that were in the best interest of the client while also considering the impact on public safety. S U M M A R Y Despite the fact that the SATC team meeting was frequently interrupted by non-team members (i.e., outside attorneys) and that various other calendars were interspersed within the same meeting, there was a strong perception of team cohesion, respect for one another, and respect for the clients being discussed. Primary topics were progress in treatment, substance use progress, and progress in supervision/case management. Page 10

12 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Courtroom Observations P U R P O S E A N D P R O C E D U R ES Drug court hearings were observed in order to describe that process in relation to the 10 Key Components. Measurement Two measurement instruments were created: one that was completed for each participant and one that was completed based on all hearings. The instruments were adapted from a variety of sources in the drug court literature. Variables recorded included: time spent on each case, case characteristics, judicial interactions with the defendant, and the use of sanctions and incentives (Carey et al., 2012; Cumming & Wong, 2008; Rossman, Roman, Zweig, Rempel, & Lindquist, 2011(a); Rossman et al., 2011(b); Satel, 1998). Data Collection Data were collected on team meetings for the SATC in Santa Barbara. SATC observations were completed over seven days. All of the SATC cases heard during these observations were coded, for a total of 55 SATC case observations made. Court hearings began after lunch and continued through the afternoon. Other calendars were heard alongside the SATC cases; however, only the data pertaining to the SATC cases are reported here. R E S U L T S Time There were 55 cases observed. A total of 117 minutes were spent on the 46 SATC clients for which time data were available. The average time spent per case was 2.54 minutes. A majority of the cases were heard for 1-2 minutes (65%). 35% 65% 1-2 minutes 3-7 minutes Page 11

13 Santa Barbara SATC Clients A majority of the clients were male (75%). Over half of cases heard were regular status hearings (58%), with the rest comprising pre-participation hearings (18%) and sentencing hearings (7%). About 11% of the SATC clients observed were in custody at the time of their hearing. Most of the clients made statements while their case was being heard (90%), some asked questions (20%), and a small percentage of them shared a success story (9%). A minority of the clients appeared with their counsel at the time of their hearing (33%), although this may be a reflection of clients having met with counsel prior to the hearing. Family members appeared with clients approximately 2% of the time. Judicial Interactions The judge made eye contact and spoke directly to the clients almost all of the time (97%). The judge engaged the clients during their hearing a majority of the time (86%), and often sometimes explained the consequences of compliance and noncompliance in the program (64%). The judge did not direct any comments to the audience. Treatment reports were conveyed orally during the hearings by the judge and/or treatment staff 53% of the time. Noncompliance and Sanctions Noncompliance with some aspect of the program was observed in 42% of the 55 total cases. Program noncompliance was comprised of positive or missed drug tests (24%), treatment absence(s) (9%), re-arrests (4%), missing AA meetings (4%), failure to obtain a TB test (4%), failure to make payment(s) (2%), and admission of drug usage (2%). Sanctions were administered in 31% of the 55 cases observed. Sanctions were observed being administered through admonishment from the judge (20%), client remanded into custody (7%), admonishment from the District Attorney (DA) or treatment staff (6%), warning (4%), and client asked to go into sober living (2%). Recognition and Incentives Recognition was given in 25% of the 55 total cases observed. Recognition was observed for the following accomplishments: Job/school event (11%), eligibility for graduation (4%), gold stars (4%), doing well overall (4%) drug-free days (2%), phase advancement (2%), eligible for gold star (2%), and a birthday (2%). Incentives were administered in 44% of the 55 observed cases. Incentives were observed as praise from the judge (35%), courtroom applause (15%), praise from other staff (7%), encouragement (5%), gold star (4%), certificate (2%), shaking hands with the judge (2%), and shaking hands with treatment staff (2%). S U M M A R Y The Judge followed the agreements collaboratively determined in the staffing, and was the primary person interacting with the client in the courtroom. She spoke directly to each client, and most of the clients also spoke directly to her. Incentives were provided in more cases than were sanctions, with a variety of both sanctions and incentives given. Page 12

14 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Stakeholder Interviews P U R P O S E A N D P R O C E D U R E S The drug court team members perceptions of the drug court team and the overall drug court process in Santa Barbara was also of interest. In order to capture this information, an interview protocol was adapted that focused on the areas of interest and arrangements were made to meet with many team members to complete these interviews. Measurement The interview protocols were adapted from a protocol developed by NPC Research (2006). The adapted protocol contained a total of 31 questions, including questions on team functioning and responsiveness to clients. Data Collection The interviews were conducted at stakeholder convenience between January and March Research assistants obtained signed informed consent forms prior to interviewing each team member, and made every attempt to interview the stakeholders in private locations. Interviews ranged from 15 to 45 minutes in length. A total of seven collaborative court team members involved in the Santa Barbara SATC were interviewed for this report. Stakeholders included the Commissioner (SATC Judge), District Attorney, two Probation representatives, Public Defender, and two treatment representatives. The average length of time in years of the stakeholders experience working with SATC was approximately two years. Results The findings reported here focus on stakeholders perceptions of team member roles, team cohesion, and responses to diverse client needs. In addition, stakeholders described what they considered to be the most effective practices of the court as well as its areas for improvement. The interviews were read independently by two of the authors of this report, with final decisions on how to label and describe roles reached by consensus. Quotes are provided, but were edited to maintain anonymity while retaining their intent. Page 13

15 Santa Barbara SATC I N D I V I D U A L R O L E S Each stakeholder was asked about their role within the court (i.e., What is your role (or what do you do) in the drug court program? ), as well as about the roles of other team members (i.e., What is the role of the ). The following tables outline the findings on stakeholder perceptions of these roles. Judge The Judge was described as the team leader, with focus on her role as mediator of the team and making sure that all voices were heard. She was also noted as the primary person who communicated the team decisions with the client, explaining the program, encouraging them, and telling them when they did something wrong. Roles Descriptions Quotes Leadership Presides over cases Makes final decisions Team leader Creates an open environment Makes sure all voices are heard Only steps in when necessary Oversees the team She is the team leader making sure everybody feels comfortable voicing their opinion and making sure the loudest voice doesn t overbear others. Making sure we function as a team. The judge s role is to make final decisions about treatment. They are the mediator for all the other opinions. She ultimately has the final say. Team member Team member Team discussions Communicating with Communicates decisions to clients Clients Tells clients when they are doing right or wrong Goes over the contract Encourages She is part of the treatment team. She takes part in team discussion on client progress in the program. Makes sure that the person understands that when they sign the contract what they are entering into and welcomes and encourage them to do well. From that position of authority she tries to give them confidence to be successful. She communicates with the client, and will be the hammer. It s her court room, so she is the one that needs to say if the clients are doing things that are right or wrong. She s the voice of the team. Coordinator Most respondents stated that they did not think that there was a SATC program coordinator. A few stakeholders stated that there was a coordinator and that she generated statistics and reports about the program. Roles Descriptions Quotes Do not have one Do not have a coordinator Do not know if we have a coordinator We don't have one. There's not really a point person to go to. Reports Obtains statistics Provides reports I know she does a lot of statistical stuff, gathers statistical information and coordinates events for the treatment courts. Page 14

16 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation District Attorney The district attorney s role was seen as primarily being the gatekeeper and in holding clients accountable. In addition, stakeholders described other duties of pursuing community interests and being a team member, as well as encouraging client referrals to SATC and attempting to gain attention for the program. Roles Descriptions Quotes Gatekeeper Determines eligibility The gatekeeper in SATC, determines whether somebody is ineligible based on their record. Client accountability Hammer of the team Ensures consequences for noncompliance are enforced Ensures the law is upheld Ensures consequences occur for non-compliant behaviors. The DA is like the hammer of the treatment team if there is one nail loose they will nail it in. Makes sure clients are following program rules and if not, suggests removal from the program. More on the punishing side, but a lot less than in normal court. Referrals Makes referrals Has an eye toward spotting potential SATC clients. Going over contract on the record with clients. Community Interests Upholds public safety Advocates for public safety first- that s their primary focus. Team member Makes team recommendations Provides information to the team Provides the treatment team with information about how consistently the team assigns consequences to clients. Public Defender/Defense Attorney The defense attorney was described as an important source of referrals into treatment. She helps the clients understand the contract and the program. She is described as a collaborative team member, but also as someone who advocates for her clients. Roles Descriptions Quotes Referring clients Refers potential SATC clients Refers clients to services Gets clients into treatment Advocating for clients Advocates for clients Defends clients Works for clients best interests Team member Treatment team member Gives team client recommendations Communicating with the clients Communicate to clients the goals and requirements of SATC Review contract with clients They refer potential SATC clients. They are instrumental in getting the person into treatment. They represent the client and fight for the client in case there are any issues that aren t brought to light by the rest of the treatment team. They advocate for their client. Make sure their client is getting the right services and just treatment. They are also part of the treatment team, so their role is not as traditional, as they need to realize that when a client is not abiding by the contract he or she may need consequence while in a traditional courtroom they do not get involved in anything that will be punitive toward their client. They discuss the treatment options and the SATC with their clients, and review the terms of the contract, with their clients so they understand. To review the terms of the contract, with their clients so they understand. Page 15

17 Santa Barbara SATC Probation Department The probation officers were described as doing the eligibility and suitability screening for clients, and creating the SATC contract and getting it signed. They also supervise clients in the community, meeting with them and ensuring that they are meeting their requirements for the program. They help clients get to treatment, but also provide consequences when people are not responding to treatment. Finally, they report back to the team their observations from their work with the client in the community. Roles Descriptions Quotes Eligibility/Suitability Suitability screening Eligibility screening Obtain contract Client supervision Supervise clients Ensure clients comply with terms of probation Drug testing Meet with clients Case management Case plan review and development Ensures clients receive services Take clients to appointments Team member Report client progress to the team Give team recommendations Consequences for non-compliance They do the eligibility screening and suitability interview. They create the SATC contract, and bring it to court and we all sign it. They supervise the people who are on probation and make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. They meet with the client in the office at least once in the month and in the field at least once a month. They help facilitate clients getting the treatment that they need. Sometimes take them to their appointments to make sure they get there. They know the client as well as anyone so they give recommendations as part of the team. They give feedback from the community supervision standpoint. They share information with the court, telling how the client is participating and progressing and make recommendations if there is any need for interventions or change. Provide responses to client behavior They are able to provide the consequences that work as behavioral reinforcement. If someone is absconding from the program, they have the ability to pick that client up and drug test them. If we know a client is having a hard time, we can contact probation and they will provide more immediate contact with the client than we can. Page 16

18 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Treatment Provider The treatment providers were described as providing assessments of clients needs as well as their treatment. They were also noted as helping clients engage in treatment and keeping them accountable. Finally, there were described as active team members because of their knowledge about the clients, sharing information about how clients were doing in the program, and making recommendations for additional treatment as needed. Roles Descriptions Quotes Provides treatment Provides services/treatment Provides a safe environment for clients They provide treatment counseling, groups, individual. Team member Communicates with team about clients Provides client progress reports Provides treatment recommendations Lots of times they have more insight than others because they see the clients on a regular basis and know them on a more intimate level. Provide information to the court about how they are doing in the program, drug testing, program participation, sincerity, and how hard they are working. Assessments Assesses clients Involved in assessing the addiction level of the Treatment engagement Determines client treatment needs Gets clients engaged in treatment Assures client accountability Referrals Connects clients with resources Referrals for clients clients Gets clients into the program, sets up a treatment plan, and guides them through the process. They provide referrals as needed. If other types of treatment are needed they make recommendations. Mental Health Treatment Providers Although some team members described a mental health professional who helped with assessments, most noted that all of the team members pitched in to help clients with mental health problems obtain the services they need. Roles Descriptions Quotes Assessment Assess clients for mental health issues Determine client treatment needs There is a county mental health employee who assesses clients to learn the severity of their mental illnesses and makes recommendations for Provide services Ensure clients follow through with treatment Provides client information to court treatment. The team determines whether or not the person is following through with their mental health treatment as directed. We all pitch in to get people resources. Provides information to court Provides background information to the treatment team regarding the person s mental health conditions. Provides updates and feedback to the court. Page 17

19 Santa Barbara SATC Law Enforcement Stakeholders answered questions on the role of law enforcement referencing both community law enforcement agencies (i.e., local police), as well as the courtroom presence of law enforcement (i.e., the bailiff). Respondents indicated that law enforcement knew many of the clients and their cases. They assisted probation with the clients in the community to assure public safety, and were also responsible for keeping order in the courtroom. Finally, several respondents indicated that they wished law enforcement had a greater role in the SATC. Roles Descriptions Quotes Fieldwork They know cases Makes sure clients are complying with the terms of their release Make arrests Responsible for public safety Assists probation with fieldwork Courtroom Duties Keeps order in the court Maintains court safety Remands clients More Involvement Desired They know the clients and the cases involved. Makes sure clients are following the terms and conditions of their release. Law enforcement s job is to keep the public safe. They assist probation in doing fieldwork if they need to make an arrest. Keeps order in the courtroom. Ensures the safety of everyone that is in the courtroom. Makes sure everybody behaves and remands people who are ordered by the judge to be remanded. In the court the Bailiff s are very important for maintaining order and a respectful environment. Does not play enough role in SATC I think it would be helpful to have law enforcement more involved. I think it would be helpful for them too to see that we aren t just soft on the participants. T E A M C O H E S I O N Each stakeholder was asked to answer the question, How well do you feel the partners involved in the SATC work together? The respondents indicated that they felt the team worked together well. The described respect for each other, a collaborative decision-making process, and indicated that they were motivated to compromise because they were working toward the same goals. Primary Themes Descriptions Quotes Work together well Work together very well Respect for each other I think our treatment team now works really well together. Teamwork Team decision-making Compromise Collaboration Good communication Team efforts to help clients Working toward same goals Reach fair client resolutions Working toward same goals Do what is best for the clients We respect each other s opinions. An example is that the public defender will not argue against custody time if the treatment team feels it s in the client s best interest if they are still actively using. If there is disagreement about what should be the response to a client s problem, then we spend time talking about it and trying to determine a solution that everyone can get behind. We have the same goals. We come to a decision about what is best for the client. We sometimes have different opinions but the end product is a fair resolution for the client. We try to help people who are motivated and who are struggling. Page 18

20 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation D I V E R S I T Y Two areas of client diversity were explored in the stakeholder interviews; gender-specific practices (i.e., What are the gender-specific practices of this court? ) and culture-specific practices (i.e., What are the culture-specific practices of this court? ). The findings are outlined in the tables below. Gender-Specific Practices A few participants noted the presence of gender-specific treatment for women; however, most respondents stated that there were no gender-specific practices. It should be noted, however, that only 25% of those served were women. Specific practices Descriptions Quotes None None available I don t think there are any, except with pregnant women. Not any that I can think of. Gender-specific groups Gender-specific residential treatment Gender-specific groups Some of the providers have gender specific groups. Women-only residential treatment programs Gender-specific sober living homes We make referrals to gender specific sober living homes or treatment programs. Pregnant women Programs for pregnant women We are always mindful if a woman is pregnant while using, because we are worried about the unborn baby. Culture-Specific Practices Most clients stated that they did not see many culture-specific practices. The only ones mentioned were bilingual groups and court interpreters, although it was also noted that all team members participated in cultural sensitivity trainings. The availability of faith-based residential treatment was noted, but it was also noted that this was the only option for many clients who did not subscribe to that faith or belief system. Specific practices Descriptions Quotes None None Not enough offered I don t think we have any. I don t think enough are offered to people with Bilingual interventions Spanish speaking groups Bilingual treatment different cultures and traditions. The programs provide bilingual treatment if needed. We have Spanish-speaking groups. Interpreter Court interpreter We use an interpreter in court if they don t understand English. Nothing else though. Training Cultural sensitivity training We all participate in a cultural sensitivity training. Page 19

21 Santa Barbara SATC C O U R T R O O M P R A C T I C E S Stakeholders were asked to answer these two questions on most effective court practices and areas for improvement: What do you think are the most promising practices of this drug court? and Are there any changes you would like to see happen that you think would improve the program or make it more effective? Their answers are outlined below. Most Effective Practices Team members were asked for their perceptions of the SATC s most effective practices. Almost all team members mentioned the collaboration among team members. They described incorporating different viewpoints for the good of the client. They also praised the structure of the program and the accountability it required of clients. Finally, genuine concern for clients well-being was noted. Specific practices Descriptions Quotes Team relationship Team collaboration Working together Team s communication I think because we incorporate the viewpoints of so many people leads to a better result for the client. Our ability to work together. The collectivism of our team, working together for the greater good. We all know our role but when we are a wall of agreement, Accountability Time spent on clients Making clients accountable SATC structure Level of treatment high Court hearings Time clients get with judge Individualized approach Good treatment programs Concern for clients Team cares about the client Team wants to see clients get better Positive relationship with judge we are very hard to pierce for a client. We do a good job getting clients into court every week and we devote resources to do that. The accountability through court reviews is good. The level of treatment they get is good and a lot more than in some other counties. I don t even think it s enough but it s on the spectrum of better treatment and what s needed for a serious addict. We try to take individual needs into account when we can and accommodate if possible. We have good programs that provide a safe environment for the clients to get treatment. I think the participants know we really care about them. Everybody likes to go in front of the judge and have a good report; they love to get a word with the judge. Page 20

22 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Areas for Improvement Stakeholders noted two somewhat conflicting areas for improvement. On the one hand, there was a call for more clients to be entered into the program. Among ideas for making this happen were increasing awareness about eligibility criteria for the program and getting more encouragement from defense attorneys. On the other hand, stakeholders identified the need for more resources to treat clients. This included the need for more funded treatment slots, more services for clients with different needs, and more paid time for team members. Historically, funds were cut to this program when client numbers went down; now, as numbers are increasing there is a call for resources to meet their needs. Finally, several team members stated that they wished that some of the other team members had more understanding and empathy for clients. Specific practices Descriptions Quotes Increased funding Funded treatment for clients Services at low cost I d like to see treatment funded and be able to take that one concern off the clients backs, especially when they are unemployed. Defendants can t get in until they can pay for treatment. They go on a waitlist and treatment is minimal until they can pay for it. Want to expand Increased number of clients Increased understanding of clients More clients in SATC Increased awareness of SATC Make sure clients are eligible prior to suitability interview Ability to serve clients with more severe mental health problems Better understanding of clients struggles Need more of Involvement from law enforcement More time for calendar Access to psychiatrist/medications More services services, at no or low cost There needs to be more clients entering the program. There needs to be more awareness that it doesn t have to be only drug charges and that as long as the client has an addiction problem they can come to SATC. I would like to see more encouragement by the defense for eligible clients. Initial screenings by the DA s office to make sure participants are eligible before the suitability interview. Broaden the team s understanding of the client s experiences and increase their empathy for how difficult change is for addicts given the underlying physiology and psychology. Getting law enforcement more involved would be positive for both law enforcement and the clients. It d be nice if the probation officer had more time to spend individually with each person. Some days we don t have enough time to really handle the calendar we have and we have to rush. Need access to a psychiatrist and medication more easily. It would be nice if there were more services to offer such as psychiatric care, individual counseling, sober livings that are reputable and affordable, and more variety in residential care. S U M M A R Y The stakeholders described a collaborative team system. The Judge led by mediating the group, allowing all voices to be heard before making the final decisions. The Defense and DA were described as working well together and working for their constituents by advocating for clients and assuring public safety. Probation and treatment providers were described as actively involved with clients in the community and as active team members as well. Most team members reported that they did not have a team coordinator, although some reported that the coordinator obtained statistics and generated reports. Team members expressed a need for more involvement in the SATC by both mental health and law enforcement. They also noted that gender and culture-specific practices were limited. Finally, the team indicated that they were in the process of trying to find a balance between increasing the number of clients served and the resources available to them. It is also important to note that the average time spent by stakeholders on the SATC was two years, reflecting a relatively young and developing drug court team. Page 21

23 Stakeholder Surveys Santa Barbara SATC P U R P O S E A N D P R O C E D U R ES A survey was adapted from scales created by previous researchers that focused on stakeholder perceptions of drug court adherence to the 10 Key Components for Drug Courts. Stakeholders completed the survey during in-person interviews with the research team. Measurement An interview protocols was adapted from three scales by Hiller and colleagues (Hiller, Unpublished; Hiller et al., 2010; NPC Research, 2006), which were created to assess adherence to the 10 Key Components of drug courts. The adapted survey contained 37 questions. Each question solicited a level of agreement ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Data Collection A total of seven team members involved in the drug court completed the survey. Most of the surveys were administered at the same time as the in-person interviews. Research assistants obtained informed consent prior to talking to each team member, and made every attempt to facilitate the stakeholders completing the surveys in private locations. R E S U L T S Responses for each question are separated according to the 10 Key Components that were derived from Hiller et al. s (2010) factor analysis. Hiller et al. s scale examined perceptions of drug courts adherence to the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts. The authors found that while several of the Key Components stood alone, others could be collapsed into combined categories. Page 22

24 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Eligibility and Program Components This category includes aspects of Key Components 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 regarding client eligibility and suitability requirements and standard program components. Key Component 3 -- Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program. Key Component 4 Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. Key Component 5 Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing. Key Component 6 A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants compliance. Key Component 7 Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential. There were high levels of agreement that clients attended regular status hearings with the judge, clients were required to watch the reviews of other clients, client received referrals for higher levels of treatment if needed, drug test results were communicated quickly and accurately, and that sanctions severity was matched to the severity of the precipitating event. There was some question as to whether or not there were specific criteria for admission to the SATC, if clients participated in educational/vocational assessment and training, and in the availability of gender- and culture- specific interventions. Question Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Strongly Agree 4 5 A participant must meet explicit legal criteria to 0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 0% be eligible for the program. A potential participant must meet distinct 0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 0% treatment criteria to be eligible for the program. Participants attend regular status/review 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% hearings with the judge. Participants are required to watch the 0% 14.3% 0% 28.6% 57.1% status/reviews of the other participants. Participants can participate in educational and 14.3% 0% 14.3% 71.4% 0% vocational assessment and training. A participant may be referred to a higher level 0% 0% 0% 14.3% 85.7% treatment if needed. Gender-specific treatment is available to those 14.3% 14.3% 0% 28.6% 42.9% who want it. Culturally-sensitive interventions are utilized. 14.3% 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 0% Drug test results are quickly communicated to 0% 0% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% the drug court team. Precautions are taken to prevent participants 0% 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4% from tampering with their drug tests. The severity of the sanction is matched with the 0% 0% 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% seriousness of the infraction. Minor infractions result in minor sanctions 0% 0% 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% Page 23

25 Santa Barbara SATC Therapeutic and Individualized Jurisprudence This category includes aspects of Key Components 2, 4, and 6 regarding the therapeutic aspect of the drug court process and individualized components of the process in relation to the drug court clients. Key Component 2 Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants rehabilitation needs. Key Component 4 Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. Key Component 6 A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants compliance. There was agreement among most respondents that the collaborative aspects of a drug court were well implemented: adversarial goals set aside, treatment goals integrated with court goals, and sanctions and rewards utilized effectively for clients. There was some discrepancy as to whether or not clients treatment plans and services varied from client to client. Question Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Nor Disagree Disagree Agree Traditional adversarial roles are set aside during 0% 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4% the drug court process. The operations of the drug court reflect both 0% 0% 14.3% 0% 85.7% court and treatment goals. Treatment plans are individualized to the needs 0% 0% 14.3% 14.3% 71.4% of each participant. Treatment plans are similar for each participant. 0% 14.3% 57.1% 14.3% 14.3% All participants receive the same set of 0% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 14.3% treatment services. Rewards are matched to the level of compliance 0% 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4% shown by the participant. The drug court judge tends to individualize the 0% 0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% sanctions given to the participant. The drug court rewards participant progress in 0% 0% 0% 14.3% 85.7% the program. Sanctions are effective for influencing participant compliance. 0% 0% 0% 57.1% 42.9% Graduated Sanctions This category reflects Key Component 6 regarding how the drug court responds to client behavior with sanctions. Key Component 6 A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants compliance. There was strong agreement that sanctions were used in a graduated manner in response to client behavior. Question The drug court uses a graduated system of sanctions to address noncompliant behavior. Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Nor Disagree Disagree Agree % 0% 0% 42.9% 57.1% Page 24

26 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Team Collaboration and Communication This category is mostly comprised of Key Component 1, but also involves an aspect of Key Component 9. This category focuses on level of team collaboration and communication experienced within the drug court process. Key Component 1 Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. Key Component 9 Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. There was a high level of agreement on the collaborative nature of the team. Stakeholders reported respect for each other s opinions, effective communication, and collaborative decision making supported by the Judge. Question Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Nor Disagree Disagree Agree The judge values the treatment providers 0% 0% 0% 14.3% 85.7% recommendations about the participants. Court and treatment staff have a difficult time 85.7% 14.3% 0% 0% 0% communicating with each other. The team has worked hard to understand each 0% 0% 0% 71.4% 28.6% other s perspective. Major decisions are made collaboratively by the 0% 0% 0% 28.6% 71.4% drug court team. Everyone feels like they are an important part of 0% 0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% the drug court team. Team members understand each other s roles. 0% 0% 0% 42.9% 57.1% Treatment and court staff work well together. 0% 0% 0% 42.9% 57.1% Community Support This category reflects Key Component 10 regarding level of support that the drug court has garnered in the community and the method in which community support is obtained. Key Component 10 Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness. There were varied responses as to the level of community support, availability of resources and media attention to the program. In particular, responses reflect the perception that the drug court could acquire a stronger network of treatment resources for its clients, and that additional positive media and community attention should be garnered. Question Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Nor Disagree Disagree Agree The drug court has a rich network of treatment 28.6% 0% 28.6% 14.3% 28.6% resources. The community is supportive of the drug court s 0% 14.3% 42.9% 14.3% 28.6% efforts. The drug court uses the news media to garner 14.3% 28.6% 42.9% 14.3% 0% support. Media attention has been positive. 0% 14.3% 71.4% 0% 14.3% Page 25

27 Santa Barbara SATC Data Driven Program Development This category reflects Key Component 8 regarding the degree in which the drug court program uses data and evaluation to continue to develop program efforts. Key Component 8 Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness. Responses to these items suggested that evaluation reports are not utilized by the treatment team for making changes within the drug court. Question Evaluation data have been used to make changes in the drug court. The team regularly uses data to assess the operations of the program. Strongly Disagree 1 2 Neither Agree Nor Disagree 3 Strongly Agree % 0% 85.7% 0% 0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% 0% 0% Defense and Prosecution Collaboration This category reflects Key Component 2, and speaks to the level of collaboration between the defense and the prosecution in drug court proceedings. Key Component 2 Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants rehabilitation needs. There was a high level of agreement, with one exception, on the non-adversarial approach used by defense and prosecution in the drug court. Question Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Nor Disagree Disagree Agree Prosecution and defense work together to 14.3% 0% 14.3% 14.3% 57.1% identify who is eligible for court. Defense and prosecution work well together. 0% 0% 14.3% 28.6% 57.1% S U M M A R Y Stakeholders reported a high level of collaboration among team members, with all voicing their opinions before team decisions were made. In general, a non-adversarial approach to working with clients was described. Sanctions and rewards were noted as being used in graded fashion appropriate to client behavior. The court process was described as structured, with regular status hearings viewed by all clients. Questions were raised about the criteria for admission to the SATC, the availability of gender- and culture- specific interventions, and individualization of clients treatment plans and services. In addition, the need for more community support, availability of resources, and media attention to the program was noted. Page 26

28 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Conclusions S U M M A R Y O F F I N D I N G S This drug court process evaluation utilized four sources of information: 1) observations of the team staffing prior to courtroom proceedings; 2) observations of courtroom proceedings; 3) interviews with stakeholders (team members); and 4) survey responses from team members. Each addressed aspects of the 10 Key Components for effective drug court functioning. There was consistency in the information obtained through the different methods. Support for the Key Components, and areas in need of further development, are described below. Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing. A collaborative spirit was evident among the treatment team, supported by observations from the evaluators as well as self-report by the stakeholders. Stakeholders described a strong group process, led by the Judge, in which all voices were heard before decisions were made. Program progress, drug use, and other aspects of clients successes and failures were discussed in the team. The collaborative process, including mutual respect, communication, and working toward a common goal, was considered one of the most effective aspects of the SATC. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants rehabilitation needs. Most stakeholders believed that the defense and prosecution worked well together. It was noted that they still maintained their role perspectives as protectors of public safety (prosecution) and providers of client support (defenders). Nevertheless, other team members reported that both the prosecutor and defender adapted their roles to also be effective and cooperative team members. Team cohesion and respect for each other s viewpoints was evident in the staffing observation. The only area in which some concern was noted was in determining client eligibility, with some question as to which both the prosecutor and defense attorney were on the same page in terms of client qualifications and referrals. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the drug court program. The manner in which clients are referred to the SATC has improved over the past year, but still remains an area of concern. For years the number of clients referred to the SATC was very low. That number has increased this year, which is attributed both to the defense attorney encouraging clients to enter treatment, and the prosecutor finding more clients who are eligible. While stakeholders report that probation does the eligibility research, the defense attorney encourages clients, and the prosecutor checks eligibility and suitability as a gatekeeper, there is a need for more standardization of this process so that all qualified clients can receive treatment while protecting the public safety. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services. Stakeholders positively described the quality of existing services but were concerned about the lack of affordable services. This problem has been caused, in part, by changes in the number of clients served by the program over time. While initially robust, the program became smaller and county resources for it were commensurately reduced. Thus, while there has been an increase in recent enrollment, there are currently an insufficient number of fully funded slots for them. In addition, stakeholders noted the need for a greater variety of services, including residential treatment for those who did not want to participate in a religious or spiritual program, culture- and gender-specific interventions, and interventions for those with co-occurring mental illnesses. Page 27

29 Santa Barbara SATC Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing. Discussion of drug tests results was a key part of the staffing. Stakeholders reported that testing was done frequently by probation and by treatment providers, and outcomes were reported regularly and quickly. The Judge assigned sanctions and rewards to clients based, in part, on this testing. No problems in this area were noted. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants compliance. Stakeholders reported that rewards and sanctions were used in a graded and appropriate manner with clients. Clients behaviors were described in detail during the staffing and decisions on how to respond to clients were made by the team, with dispersal of rewards and sanctions an important part of each discussion. The Judge provided both sanctions and rewards to clients as part of the court process. The other stakeholders reported that clients valued their time with the Judge and took her responses to them seriously. Ongoing judicial interaction with each drug court participant is essential. While the Judge heard all voices in the staffing, it was the Judge s voice that clients heard. The Judge had direct contact and communication with each client during their hearing. Clients looked to the Judge for praise, other rewards and sanctions. The importance of these judicial interactions with clients were noted by stakeholders and observed during the courtroom sessions. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness. The team indicated that they did not use data to inform program practices. It appeared that few of the team members had access to the yearly evaluation report presented to the Policy Council. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations. There was little discussion of training among stakeholders. Although some team participants indicated that they had received culture-sensitivity training, others reported that they needed to do more to provide cultural sensitive treatment and wished other team members had greater understanding of clients underlying concerns and needs. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness. Most stakeholders believed that more needed to be done to obtain community support for the SATC. Stakeholders indicated a need for more positive publicity and a greater network of community resources. F U T U R E D I R E C T I O N S 1) Although the team functions well when discussing individual cases, the SATC staffing process may benefit from having a more structured time dedicated to it. Consolidating the SATC calendar to one day, and allowing the SATC calendar to proceed uninterrupted, would focus attention from the group members, and from the community, on this calendar and its importance to the community. 2) The program does not have a dedicated coordinator. A coordinator could maintain a closer look at the team and its needs in order to provide training and other resources as concerns arise. The program would benefit from having someone whose responsibility it is to coordinate team efforts, obtain resources as needed, and communicate those efforts to stakeholders outside of the team. 3) As the number of clients in the SATC dropped during the past 10 years, there was a commensurate reduction in county resources, particularly a reduction in paid treatment slots. As the numbers increase, there should be a concomitant increase in resources to meet their growing needs. Page 28

30 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation 4) Various stakeholders raised concern about the application of eligibility and suitability criteria to potential SATC clients. There are several areas where this can be addressed: identification of all eligible clients in Santa Barbara, accurate and fair screening for eligibility and suitability, and encouragement of those who qualify to participate. Although the increase in client numbers indicates that this is improving, stakeholders continue to note the need to examine and standardize these procedures. 5) Stakeholders indicated that other than providing services in Spanish there were few program modifications related to meeting the needs of diverse clients. The team could benefit from additional resources to provide culturally-sensitive interventions to the diverse clients it serves. 6) Although most of the stakeholders were unaware of it, an annual evaluation report is prepared on outcomes of the SATC. It is important to share the information gathered on the program and its effectiveness with the treatment team so that they can use this information to improve the program. Page 29

31 Appendix Santa Barbara SATC The appendix includes the following instruments: 1. Team Meeting Observations 2. Team Meeting Observations By Case 3. Team Meeting Observations 4. Court Hearing Observations Individual Sessions 5. Court Hearing Observations 6. Stakeholder Survey 7. Stakeholder Interview Page 30

32 Santa Barbara County Drug Court Process Evaluation Drug Court Team Meeting Observations (completed DURING the meeting) Date: Observer: Team Observed: Location: 1. Start Time: 2. Stop Time: 3. Total Meeting Length (in minutes): 4. Stakeholders in attendance: (check all that apply) Judge(s) Project/Resource Coordinator(s) Defense Attorney(s) Prosecutor(s) Treatment Liaison(s) Case Manager(s) Probation Officer(s) Law Enforcement Other(s); specify: 5. Who ran the staffing? (check all that apply) Judge(s) Project/Resource Coordinator(s) Defense Attorney(s) Prosecutor(s) Treatment Liaison(s) Case Manager(s) Probation Officer(s) Law Enforcement Adapted from: Carey, S. M., Mackin, J. R., & Finigan, M. W. (2012). What works? The ten key components of drug court: Research-based best practices. Drug Court Review, 8(1), Retrieved from Cumming, T., & Wong, S. M. (2008). An evaluation of SDN s inclusion support agencies: Exploring strengths-based approaches to inclusion support. Retrieved from Final%20Copy.pdf Rossman, S. B., Roman, J., Zweig, D. K., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C., eds The Multi-Site Drug Court Evaluation. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. (Study work product: does not appear in formal publication). Retrieved from Page 31

33 Santa Barbara SATC Page 32