Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0333.000 2008-2010 ~tY os q~ William P. Kenoi Nancy E. Crawford Mayor Director Deanna S. Sako •'~.o',M',N. Deputy Director County of Hawaii Finance Department 25 Aupuni Street, Room 118 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 961-8234. Fax (808) 961-8248 rv May 6, 2009 0 O J Yoshimoto, Council Chair and C Members of the Hawai'i County Council Hawai'i County Council 25 Aupuni Street } Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Re: Authorization to enter into an agreement In 2007, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney was awarded a Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine Initiative Grant by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The Office of the Prosecuting Attorney had applied for the funds to improve the Big Island Drug Court's efforts to more effectively intervene and engage the methamphetamine offender in a timely manner. This grant, administered by the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, also benefitted the Hawai'i State Judiciary and the Office of the Public Defender. To assess the overall success of the implementation of this grant, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney will be contracting with the Research Corporation of the University of Hawai'i (RCUH) to have them administer this evaluation component. Enclosed is a resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Research Corporation of the University of Hawai'i (RCUH) and for them to evaluate the Big Island Drug Court's enhancement project. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney. C C~ 0 Nancy E. Crawford Director of Finance Enc. cc: Prosecutors Comm. No. 333 ?RCS• I b+fl9) Ref. To: _ L - Ref. Date VIiaY 0 7 2.009 Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer V Form B-52 7/18/91 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DEPARTMENT: Prosecutor's Office DATE: 5/4/09 STAFF CONTACT: Nancy Kelly PHONE: 934-3315 A. REQUEST: Approval authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement with the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaii (RCUH) for the process evaluation component of the Big Island Drug Court Program. B. BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION (USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED): The evaluation is a mandatory component of the 2007 COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) Methamphetamine Initiative award which our office received to implement the Big Island Drug Court enhancement project. The RCUH will administer the evaluation component of this project which will be completed by July 31, 2010. SIGNED: ~u1J T;~ DATE: 5/4/09 Department Head t S t Big Island Drug Court Program Hawaii County DRAFT Scope of Services: Process Evaluation of the Expanded Drug Court Services Grant t Submitted July 17, 2008 By: Marilyn Brown, Ph.D. Kanzeon Associates P.O. Box 667 Volcano, HI 96785 Phone: (808) 756-0500 Introduction Since 2002, the Big Island Drug Court (BIDC) Program of the Third Circuit has provided a continuum of comprehensive services, substance abuse treatment funding through local providers, and intensive judicial supervision to approximately 100 adult defendants. The majority of this population are methamphetamine users who are provided with the support required to remain clean, obey the law, comply with restitution orders, do community service, obtain a high-school equivalency as needed, maintain employment and stable residences, and re-establish relationships (that do not involve substance use) with family and friends. Although the Program has apparently achieved a respectable level of success in these areas, some barriers to operations remain. Additional Federal funding was recently awarded to BIDC in order that some of these issues might be addressed. These issues mainly include systematic delays due to personnel shortages and resulting lag time in admitting eligible clients to drug court and treatment. But funding was also desired for on-going monitoring and support of clients after `graduation' from the BIDC Program. Additional personnel funded by the grant provide this support for graduates who remain on probationary status. The additional funding also addresses the need for data collection on the progress of graduates to be used as feedback in refining future BIDC strategies. In addition to providing needed personnel, funding provides additional training and technical assistance for the BIDC Planning team. Implementation Objectives The objectives of the expanded service activities under the grant are: • To be better able to address methamphetamine (substance abuse) problems through the collaboration of different agencies (police, prosecutor's office, judiciary, public defender's office) by providing timely and effective treatment for drug offenders with appropriate sanctions and incentives. • To be better able to address the problems and the issues related to methamphetamine users and methamphetamine substance abuse, and to be able to enhance the capability to successfully and continually implement existing projects and programs • To be better able to provide necessary monitoring and support to methamphetamine users who have graduated from BIDC but remain on probation. • To better provide the necessary monitoring and support to methamphetamine users who are at a very critical stage in their lives after graduation from the formal drug court program - that stage where relapse or near relapse may be likely. • To identify the methamphetamine using offender earlier, and expedite the screening and processing of the case throughout the entire process. Reductions are expected from the current six - nine months involved in screening and 2 charging the offender to within 60 days from the police referral of the case, and drug court eligibility screening and assessment to 30 days. • To develop better tracking and appropriate data collection systems, and evaluation procedures of methamphetamine using offenders to provide the prosecutors, public defenders, and courts more detailed information to identify better strategies and responses to methamphetamine users and those affected by their substance abuse. The data collection could include those methamphetamine users not admitted to Big Island Drug Court to better evaluate current eligibility requirements and drug court policies and procedures, and adopt modifications based upon the data collected. • To provide better training and technical assistance to enhance the current skills of probation officers and, additionally, assist the Big Island Drug Court Planning Team with areas that have emerged and need to be addressed through Big Island Drug Court Planning Team policies and procedures. For example, should offenders with co-existing conditions of methamphetamine abuse and mental illness be treated and supervised differently than those without the mental health issues? Another example is whether the Big Island Drug Court should consider having a separate track for drug offenders who have a current misdemeanor violent offense when families request reunification and where the violence appears to be primarily drug-driven. What are the appropriate intervention and treatment strategies for methamphetamine offenders with drug-driven violence? The implementation of these objectives under the grant is primarily through the hiring of additional personnel for agencies in the BIDC network. Two additional probation officers (one each for East and West Hawaii) will: • supervise graduates • perform case management of 20 additional clients (10 each for East and West Hawaii) One (FTE) paralegal for the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney will: • coordinate and facilitate law enforcement efforts associated with cases • streamline the flow of information among agencies • monitor pending cases • coordinate legal cases and carry out certain legal duties in support of the processing of these cases • create tracking methods to monitor the progress of admissions and legal cases as above One (FTE) paralegal for the Office of the Public Defender will: • assist in the identification of potential clients • process admission requests • develop administrative and clerical tracking systems for applicants and participants • assist deputy public defender with technical and legal issues of clients in BIDC 3 • serve as liaison with other BIDC agency/partners Process Evaluation Research Desi In assessing the overall success of the implementation of this grant, we will draw upon an assessment framework of ajuvenile intensive aftercare program evaluation conducted for the National Council of Crime and Delinquency (Wiebush et al. 2005). These authors used the following rating system to discuss the overall functioning of implementation and design elements for correctional programs: Weak: Component(s) that is not implemented or certain practice(s) rarely implemented according to model and protocols instituted for the program. Moderate: Practices generally correspond to the program model and meet expectations. However, certain indicators suggest that elements have some shortcomings and that these faults negatively affect the implementation of the program. However, strengths outweigh weaknesses. Strong: Aside from one or two shortcomings, the degree of implementation corresponds to the model and meets expectations. As the authors of this rating system explain, "This means that almost everyone was doing what they were supposed to be doing, doing it reasonably well, and doing it most of the time" (Wiebush et al 2005, p. 46). The few elements of weakness do not negatively affect the overall functioning of the program. Very Strong: Components of the program function to a high degree in accordance to the model, and many times exceed expectations. (Very strong is not used in characterizing overall program functioning; the highest overall rating is "Strong.") Each component (which will reflect each agency's duties, especially grant-funded personnel) of the expanded drug court program will be subjected to this rating process to produce an overall assessment of the expanded activities under the grant. The central research questions that frame this evaluation are as follows: • To what extent have the objectives of the grant, i.e., expanded drug court services, been met? Has the expansion of personnel resulted in more efficient and timely handling of cases from application through graduation? • What has the impact of drug court been on clients who have graduated from BIDC in terms of compliance with supervision, relapse, arrests, and graduation? • What has been the impact of emergent mental health issues among drug court clients on operations and to what extent can existing agencies deal successfully with this special population? 4 • How can existing data collection methods be expanded and refined to provide continuous feedback and reporting for the further improvement of drug court services? Methods This evaluation will document the strengths and weaknesses of the operation of drug court activities under the expanded services grant. It will assess the roles and relationships among the partnering agencies and describe the impact of these services on the justice system. And, finally, it will produce a summary statistical report on intermediate outcomes for clients. The methods will consist of document and data review, data collection from client case files, interviews with key stakeholder agencies, and client focus groups. Review of Documents and Existing Data Collection Methods This phase of the evaluation will inventory existing methods of capturing data and assess their usefulness to the BIDC's operations. This will include a review of each agency's BIDC tracking and monitoring systems. We will also review documentation of the flow of cases through drug court. Interviews with Key Stakeholders Agencies involved in BIDC include both criminal justice agencies, Office of the Prosecutor, Office of the Public Defender) as well as substance abuse service provider(s) (BISAC). Interviews will be conducted with key personnel to determine: • their role in drug court • what data their agency generates and how • what data would be necessary in order to improve operations • the impact of the drug court on their work • their perspective on the flow of communication and progress of cases through the BIDC • quality of communication within the BIDC team • quality of drug court services • strengths and limitations of the BIDC • extent to which emergent mental health issues impact drug court operations and outcomes Client Focus Groups Substitute self-administered questionnaire? Follow up with CJIS data? (Arrests, etc.) Two focus groups will be conducted with clients of the BIDC. One group (4-5 individuals) will include clients who have been members of drug court for six months. The second group (4-5 individuals) will include graduates of drug court. Participation will be voluntary and confidential. Questions to be asked will include how participants 5 decide to enter drug court, quality of services received, the impact of drug court on their lives and those of family members, and suggestions for improvement. Evaluation Products and Reports The evaluator will produce quarterly reports for the Office of the Prosecutor on the progress of the evaluation. The final report will include the following: 1. Overall assessment of the extent to which the objectives of the grant were met A. Strengths and weaknesses of operations, roles, relationships, communications among partners B. Assessment of the impact of emergent mental health issues among clients and recommendations for the identification and treatment of this special population C. Assessment of systems for monitoring drug court graduates D. Impact of expanded personnel upon the efficiency and timeliness of drug court processes II. Client Characteristics and Preliminary Outcomes A. Client demographic characteristics B. Assessment data (LSI-R/ASIS) and risk level C. Intermediate outcomes 1. Contacts with probation officer 2. Compliance with treatment plan 3. UA reports 4. Arrests/new charges 5. Terminations 6. Graduation 7. General indicators: employment; housing; family reunification; GED/vocational training D. Client perspectives on BIDC (analysis of focus group interviews) III. Comparison of Track III BIDC participants with matched sample of probationers in the Intensive Case Management probation track. A. Using CJIS data, compare both groups for rates of rearrest, conviction, revocation of probation. B. Produce a survival analysis for both groups as well as bivariate analysis of criminal justice data (CJIS). IV. Recommendations for improved system operations, including data collection and reporting 6