FDC Best Practices - Children and Family Futures · 10 Key Components for Drug Courts 1. Integrate...

Phil Breitenbucher, MSWChildren and Family Futures

Shannon Carey, PhDNPC Research

NADCP | July 2015

Children and Families

Family Drug Courts

Stronger Together

FDC Best Practices:Understanding the Ten Key

Components, the FDC Guidelines

and the Best Practice Standards

This presentation is supported by:

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of Justice Programs

(2013-DC-BX-K002)

Points of view or opinions expressed in this presentation are those ofthe presenter(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgement

• Introduction of FDC Best Practices

• Creating a Shared Mission –Activity and Discussion

• Effective Communication –Activity and Discussion

• Serving Families –Activity and Discussion

• Closing Comments

Presentation Outline

THE EVOLUTION OF

FAMILY DRUG COURTS

History

Common Ingredients of FDCs

2002 Process Evaluation

• System of identifying families

• Earlier access to assessment and treatment services

• Increased management of recovery services and compliance

• Responses to participant behaviors (sanctions & incentives)

• Increased judicial oversight

• Collaborative approach across service systems and Court

6

WHAT IS SUCCESS IN FDC?KEY OUTCOMES

Safety

(CWS)

• Reduce re-entry into

foster care

• Decrease recurrence of

abuse/neglect

Recovery

(AOD)

• Reduce time to

reunification

• Reduce time to

permanency

• Reduce days in out-of-

home care

Permanency

(Court)

• Increase engagement and retention in treatment

• Increase number of clean UA’s

• Increase number of graduates

• Decrease CW and CJ recidivism

FAMILY DRUG COURT

EVALUATIONS AND OUTCOMES

A Look at

FDC OutcomesHIGHER TREATMENT

COMPLETION RATES

SHORTER TIME

IN FOSTER CARE

HIGHER FAMILY

REUNIFICATION RATES

LOWER TERMINATION

OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

LOWER CRIMINAL JUSTICE

RECIDIVISM

COST SAVINGS PER FAMILY

FEWER NEW CPS PETITIONS

AFTER REUNIFICATION

Regional Partnership Grants

Family Drug Courts

24 Grantee Sites

RPG FDC

• 5,200 children

• 8,000 adults

Children Affected by

Methamphetamine Grant Program

Butte County, CA

Clarke County, WA

Colorado

Nebraska (6 FDCs)

Oklahoma

Pima County, AZ

Riverside, CA

Sacramento, CA

San Luis Obispo, CA

Santa Barbara, CA

Santa Cruz, CA

Dunklin County, MO

3,592 Children

2,455 Adults

1,850 Families

NPC Study: What is Working?BJA Funded

Guam

Found over 50 practices that were related to improved outcomes (significantly lower recidivism or lower costs or both)

What is Working?

• Translating the 10KC into practical application

– specific drug court practices

• What are the best drug courts doing?

• Description

• Research findings

• Effective strategies

Resources

10 Key Components (1997)http://www.ndci.org/sites/default/files/ndci/KeyComponents.pdf

Adult Drug Court Best Practice Standards –Volume 1 (2013)http://www.nadcp.org/sites/default/files/nadcp/AdultDrugCourtBestPracticeStandards.pdf

Family Drug Court Practice Guidelines (2013)http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/FDC-Guidelines.pdf

10 Key Components for Drug Courts

1. Integrate treatment services with justice system case processing

2. Using a non-adversarial approach

3. Early identification and immediate placement

4. Access to a continuum of treatment services

5. Drug testing

6. Responses to behavior

7. Judicial interaction

8. Monitoring and evaluation

9. Continuing interdisciplinary education

10. Forging partnerships

10 Family Drug Court Guidelines Recommendations10 Key Components for

Drug Courts

1. Create a shared mission and vision ALL

2. Develop interagency partnerships KC 1, KC 2, KC 10

3. Create effective communication protocols for sharing information KC 1, KC 2, KC 6, KC 7

4. Ensure cross-system knowledge KC 9

5. Develop a process for early identification KC 3

6. Address needs of parents KC 2, KC 4, KC 5, KC 6, KC 7

7. Address needs of children KC 2, KC 4

8. Garner community support KC 10

9. Implement funding and sustainability KC 9, KC 10

10. Evaluate shared outcomes and accountability KC 8

* Charles County (MD) Family Recovery Court Process Evaluation, NPC Research, September 2013

Create a Shared Mission and Vision

FDC partners must have a shared mission and vision

to define their joint work. Agreement on values and

common principles is an essential foundation for

collaborative FDC relationships.

#1

THERE IS NO WAY THAT A PARENT WHO ABUSES ALCOHOL OR OTHER DRUGS CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE PARENT.

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree SomewhatDisagree

Strongly Disagree*

Per

cen

t

Child Welfare Services Court Substance Abuse Services

Mental Health Program Evaluation Other

N=90

* p<.05; **p<.01; *** p<.001

IN ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF THE USE OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS, THESTANDARD WE SHOULD USE FOR DECIDING WHEN TO REMOVE OR REUNIFY CHILDREN WITH THEIR PARENTS IS WHETHER THE PARENTS ARE FULLY ABSTAINING FROM THE USE OF ALCOHOL OR OTHER DRUGS.

N=90

* p<.05; **p<.01; *** p<.001

Develop Interagency Partnerships

FDCs bring together the legal framework of the court,

child welfare system and treatment services in a collaborative

relationship with a common goal: to restore families. To best achieve

this goal, however, they must collaborate with other agencies to

provide the range of services and support required to ensure family

stability, recovery of parents, and the permanent placement, safety

and well‐being of children. These partners should include mental

health, domestic violence, primary health care, child development

and other agencies.

Key Component 1: Integrate treatment services with justice system case

processing

Key Component 2: Using a non-adversarial approach

Key Component 10: Forging partnerships

#2

Drug Courts That Required

All Team Members to Attend Staffings

Had 50% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

and 20% Greater Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All team members attend staffingsN=31

All team does NOT attend staffingsN=28

42%

28%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uct

ion

in r

eci

div

ism

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05Note 2: “Team Members” = Judge, Both Attorneys, Treatment Provider, Coordinator

0%

10%

20%

30%

Defense attorney attends staffingsN=59

Defense Attorney does NOT attend staffingsN=11

29%

15%

Pe

rce

nt

Incr

eas

e in

Co

st S

avin

gs

29

Drug Courts Where the Defense Attorney Attends

Drug Court Team Meetings (Staffings) had

a 93% Higher Cost Savings

Note: Difference is significant at p<.05

FAMILY DRUG COURT GUIDELINES

SELF-ASSESSMENT

Activity and Discussion

Create Effective Communication

Protocols for Information Sharing

Effective, timely and efficient communication is required

to monitor cases, gauge FDC effectiveness, ensure joint

accountability, promote child safety and engage and

retain parents in recovery.

Key Component 1: Integrate treatment services with justice

system case processing

Key Component 2: Using a collaborative approach

Key Component 6: Responses to behavior

Key Component 7: Judicial interaction

#3

Barriers to Effective

Cross-Systems Communication

• Discipline-specific training

• Legal mandates and

administrative codes

• Lack of trust between the

systems

• Competing timelines

• Caseload volume

• Confidentiality provisions

The Need - Two Levels of Data

Administrative Level (macro)

• Baseline

• Outcomes

• Sustainability

Front-line Level (micro)

• Case management

• Reporting

• Tracking

Data Systems: Where does data come from?

CWSData System

AOD Data System

CourtData System

Data System Matching

FDC Outcome Reports

Note: FDC outcome reports compared with

system-wide rates

Administrative Level (macro)

• Outcome Reports

Front-line Level (micro)

• Case Reports

Whole family

Two Levels of Data:

Individual members

Collects/Receives Data Shares Data Uses Data

Building Cross-System Collaboration: Developing the Structure to Create and Sustain Change

Oversight/

Advisory Committee

Director Level

Quarterly

Program Funder:

Ensure long-term sustainability

Steering

Committee

Management Level

Monthly or

Bi-Weekly

Policy-Maker:Remove barriers

to ensure program success

FDC Treatment Team

Front-line Staff

Weekly

Staff Cases: Ensure client success

Membership

Meets

Primary Function: Information

Sharing and Data Systems

FDC STRUCTURE

To download, please visit:http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/FDC-Guidelines.pdf


Program reviews their own statsN=20

Program does NOT review statsN=15

37%

16%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

Drug Courts Where Review of the Data and

Stats Has Led to Modifications in Drug

Court Operations had a 131% Increase in

Cost Savings


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Used evaluation to make modifications toprogram

N=18

Did NOT use evaluation to make modificationsN=13

36%

18%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

#2 Drug Courts Where the Results of

Program Evaluations Have Led to

Modifications in Drug Court Operations

Had a 100% Increase in Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Program usespaper files

N=8

Program haselectronic database

N=3

20%

33%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

Drug Courts That Used Paper Files

Rather Than Electronic Databases Had

65% LESS Savings



Drug Courts where all team members attended staffings had

50% greater reductions in recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All team members attend staffingsN=31

All team does NOT attend staffingsN=28

42%

28%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uct

ion

in r

eci

div

ism


Drug Courts Where Treatment Communicates with

the Court via Email had


0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

YesN=31

NoN=14

0.46

0.21

% r

ed

uct

ion

in #

of

rear

rest

s

Treatment communicates with court via email


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Drug tests are back within48 hours

N=21

Drug testsare back in

LONGER THAN48 hours

N=16

32%

19%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

Drug Courts Where Drug Test Results are

Back in 48 Hours or Less had

68% Higher Cost Savings

Drug Courts That Used One or Two Primary

Treatment Agencies Had 76% Greater

Reductions in Recidivism


0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1 2 3 4 4 - 10 > 10

Number of agencies

Fewer treatment providers is related to greater reductions in recidivism

% reduction in recidivism

Ensure Cross-Systems Knowledge

Ongoing cross‐training of FDC team members and

stakeholders at all levels is essential for ensuring

collaboration and consistent, effective practice.

Key Component 9: Continuing interdisciplinary education

#4


Drug Courts That Provided Formal Training for

ALL New Team Members

Had 54% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

All new teammembers have formal training

N=30

All team membersNOT formally trained

N=17

40%

26%


Drug Courts That Received Training

Prior to Implementation Had Almost

3.5 Times Higher Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Team trained BEFORE implementationN=12

Team members NOT trained beforeimplementation

N=5

27%

8%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

Develop an Early Identification

and Assessment Process

FDCs identify participants early in the dependency case

process, use screening and assessment to determine the

needs and strengths of parents, children and families and

identify the most appropriate treatments and other

services based on these needs and strengths.

Key Component 3: Early identification and immediate

placement

#5

15.818.5 19.6

21.6 22.7 23.4 24.9 26.1 26.3 25.8 26.128.4 29.3 30.5 31

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

PER

CEN

TParental AOD as Reason for Removal in the

United States 1998-2013

Source: AFCARS Data Files

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Ala

bam

a

Ala

ska

Arizona

Ark

ansas

Calif

orn

ia

Colo

rado

Connecticut

Dela

ware

Dis

tric

t of C

olu

mbia

Flo

rida

Georg

ia

Haw

aii

Ida

ho

Illin

ois

India

na

Iow

a

Kansas

Ke

ntu

cky

Louis

iana

Ma

ine

Mary

land

Ma

ssa

ch

use

tts

Mic

hig

an

Min

nesota

Mis

sis

sip

pi

Mis

so

uri

Monta

na

Nebra

ska

Nevada

New

Ham

psh

ire

New

Jers

ey

New

Mexic

o

New

York

Nort

h C

aro

lina

Nort

h D

ako

ta

Oh

io

Okla

hom

a

Ore

gon

Pennsylv

an

ia

Rhode Isla

nd

South

Caro

lina

South

Dako

ta

Tennessee

Texas

Uta

h

Verm

ont

Virgin

ia

Washin

gto

n

West V

irgin

ia

Wis

consin

Wyom

ing

Puert

o R

ico

PER

CEN

TAG

E O

F C

HIL

D R

EMO

VA

LSParental Alcohol or Other Drugs as Reason for Removal, 2013

National Average: 31%

Source: AFCARS 2013

How many children in the child welfare system have a parent in need of treatment?

Statement of

the Problem• Between 60–80% of substantiated child

abuse and neglect cases involve substance

use by a custodial parent or guardian

(Young, et al, 2007)

• 61% of infants, 41% of older children who

are in out-of-home care (Wulczyn, Ernst

and Fisher, 2011)

• 87% of families in foster care with one

parent in need; 67% with two (Smith,

Johnson, Pears, Fisher, DeGarmo, 2007)


Drug Courts in Which Participants Entered the

Program within 50 Days of Arrest Had

63% Greater Reductions in Recidivism

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Participants enterprogram within

50 days of arrestN=15

Participants enterprogram within

50 days of arrestN=26

39%

24%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uct

ion

s in

re

cid

ivis

m

Adult Baseline Characteristics

Preliminary Data

**p<.01; ***p<.001

22.7

8.0

34.840.5

27.9

6.7

31.0

37.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

Employed*** Pregnant Meth asContributing

Factor**

Prior Perpetrator

Perc

ent

FDC Cohort

All Other RPGs

Defining the Scale of Your FDC

# of children with substantiated allegations: 19,976

# of children entering foster care: 5,466

# of potential children

served in FDC

# of children of substance users: 3,280 (60% estimate)

Your defined target

population

Drug Courts That Accepted Participants

With Charges in Addition to Drug Charges

Had Nearly Twice the Reductions in

Recidivism and 30% higher cost savings

Note 1: Difference is significant at p<.05Note 2: Non-drug charges include property, prostitution, violence, etc.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Drug court accepts non-drug chargesN=42

Drug court does NOT accept non-drug chargesN=24

41%

21%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uct

ion

s in

re

cid

ivis

m


SELF-ASSESSMENT


Address Needs of Parents

FDC partner agencies encourage parents to complete the recovery

process and help parents meet treatment goals and child welfare and

court requirements. Judges respond to parents in a way that supports

continued engagement in recovery. By working toward permanency

and using active client engagement, accountability and behavior change

strategies, the entire FDC team makes sure that each parent

that the FDC serves has access to a broad scope of services.

Key Component 2: Attorneys use a collaborative approach

Key Component 4: Access to a continuum of treatment services

Key Component 5: Drug testing

Key Component 7: Judicial interaction

#6

ASAM Definition of Addiction

“Addiction is a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry. Dysfunction in these circuits leads to characteristic biological, psychological, social and spiritual manifestations. This is reflected in an individual pathologically pursuing reward and/or relief by substance use and other behaviors.”

Adopted by the ASAM Board of Directors 4/12/2011

Rethinking Treatment

Readiness

Addiction as an elevator

Re-thinking “rock bottom”

“Raising the bottom”

Titles and Models

• Recovery Support Specialist

• Substance Abuse Specialist

• Recovery Coach

• Recovery Specialist

• Parent Recovery Specialist

• Peer Mentor

• Peer Specialist

• Peer Providers

• Parent Partner

What does our program and community need?You need to ask:

Experiential Knowledge,

ExpertiseExperiential Knowledge, Expertise +

Specialized Trainings

102

130

151

200

0

50

100

150

200

250

No Parent Support

Strategy

Intensive Case

Management Only

Intensive Case

Management and Peer/

Parent Mentors

Intensive Case

Management and

Recovery Coaches

Median in Days

Median Length of Stay in Most Recent Episode of

Substance Abuse Treatment after RPG Entry by

Grantee Parent Support Strategy Combinations

46% 46%

56%

63%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No Parent Support

Strategy

Intensive Case

Management Only

Intensive Case

Management and

Peer/ Parent

Mentors

Intensive Case

Management and

Recovery Coaches

Median in Days

Substance Abuse Treatment Completion Rate

by Parent Support Strategies

100

75

9085

95

60

91

49

8074

91

34

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Specialized Outreach Residential Outpatient* Aftercare Family-Centered Tx Continuum of Care**

FDC Cohort (N=20) All Other RPGs (N=35)

Substance Abuse Treatment for AdultsP

erc

en

t

* Outpatient includes: partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient and/or non-intensive outpatient.** Continuum of Care captures grantees doing all of the following: Specialized Outreach + Residential + Outpatient + Aftercare

Mental Health and Trauma

85

70

80

57

37

69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mental Health Services Psychiatric Care Trauma Informed/Specific Services

FDC Cohort (N=20) All Other RPGs (N=35)

Perc

en

t

Drug Courts That Require a Minimum of

12 Months Length of Stay Had Double

the Cost Savings


LOS 12 Months or GreaterN = 43

LOS Less Than 12 MonthsN=10

29%

13%

% In

cre

ase

in C

ost

Sav

ings

Drug Courts That Held Status Hearings

Every 2 Weeks During Phase 1 Had



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Drug court hasreview hearingsevery two weeks

N=14

Drug court hasreview hearings

more or less oftenN=35

46%

31%

Pe

rce

nt

Re

du

ctio

n in

Re

cid

ivis

m

Drug Courts That Required Greater Than 90 Days

of Abstinence Had 3 Times Greater Reduction in

Recidivism and Substantial Cost Savings


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Participants are clean at least 90 days before graduationN=57

Participants are clean LESS THAN 90 days before graduationN=9

37%

14%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uct

ion

s in

re

cid

ivis

m


Drug Courts Where a Treatment Representative

Attends Court Hearings had


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Treatment attends court hearingsN=57

Treatment does NOT attend court hearingsN=10

38%

19%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uct

ion

in r

ear

rest

s

Drug Courts That Included a Focus on Relapse

Prevention Had Over 3 Times Greater Savings


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

YesN=9

NoN=2

41%

13%

Pe

rce

nt

Imp

rove

me

nt

in

Ou

tco

me

Co

sts*

Drug Court Has a Phase that Focuses on Relapse Prevention

*”Percent improvement in outcome costs” refers to the percent savings for drug court compared to business-as-usual

Note: Difference is significant at p<.15 (Trend)

Drug Courts Where Drug Tests are Collected

at Least Two Times per Week in the First

Phase Had a 61% Higher Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Participants drug tested at least 2X per weekN=53

Participants tested LESS often than 2X per weekN=12

29%

18%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

Drug Courts That Have Judges Stay

Longer Than 2 Years Had 3 Times

Greater Cost Savings


0%

10%

20%

30%

Judge is on bench at least 2 yearsN=9

Judge is on bench LESS THAN 2 yearsN=3

25%

8%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

Judges Who Spent at Least 3 Minutes Talking

to Each Participant in Court Had More Than

Twice the Savings


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Judge spends at least 3 min. per participantN=23

Judge spends LESS THAN 3 min. per participantN=12

43%

17%

Pe

rce

nt

red

uct

ion

in r

eci

div

ism

Defining Drop-off Points

6,807 Substantiated cases of neglect and/or abuse due to

substance use disorders (2012)

Potential participants assessed for treatment (Tx)

25% drop off = 5,106

Number of participants deemed appropriate

50% = 2,553

Number admitted to Tx= 1,788

30% drop off

716 successfully completed Tx

- 60% drop off

Payoff

• Substantiated cases pulled from Iowa

AFCARS data files

• Drop off percentages estimated based on

previous drop off reports

• To be used only as an example

Address Needs of Children#7FDCs must address the physical, developmental, social,

emotional and cognitive needs of the children they serve

through prevention, intervention and treatment programs.

FDCs must implement a holistic and trauma‐informed

perspective to ensure that children receive effective,

coordinated and appropriate services.

Key Component 2: Using a non-adversarial approach

Key Component 4: Access to a continuum of treatment services

FDC Practice Improvements

Approaches to child well-being in FDCs have changed.

Child-

focused

assessments

and services

In the

context of

the parent’s

recovery

Family-

Centered

Treatment

10

8

5

4

Parenting Education

Developmental & Behavioral

Engagement & Outreach

Therapeutic-Based Parent-Child

Trauma-Focused - Children

Trauma-Focused - Adult

Selected CAM Program Strategies

12

12

310356

422

CAM RPG FDC RPG Comparison

Days in Foster CareMedian Length of Stay (days) in

Out-of-Home Care

84.9%

73.1%

54.4%


Reunification Rates within 12 MonthsP

erc

en

tag

e o

f R

eu

nif

ica

tio

n w

ith

in 1

2 m

on

ths

Remained in Home

91.5 85.1

71.1


Percentage of Children Who Remain at

Home Throughout Program Participation

2.3

3.4

4.9

5.8

CAM Children RPG Children - FDC RPG Children - No FDC RPG - 25 State ContextualSubgroup

Recurrence of Child Maltreatment

Percentage of Children Who Had

Substantiated/Indicated Maltreatment

within Six Months

5.0 5.1

13.1

CAM Children RPG - Children RPG - 25 StateContextual Subgroup

Re-entries into Foster Care

Percentage of Children

Re-entered into Foster Care

Within Twelve Months

True in adult, family, juvenile

Drug Courts That Offer Parenting Classes Had

68% Greater Reductions in Recidivism and 52%

Greater Cost Savings

Program provides parenting classesN=44

Program does NOT provide parenting classesN=17

38%

23%

% R

ed

uct

ion

in R

eci

div

ism

Drug Courts That Offer Family Counseling Had


Offered Family CounselingN = 35

No Family CounselingN = 15

38%

23%

% R

ed

uct

ion

in R

eci

div

ism

Garner Community Support

FDCs collaborate with community‐based organizations

to support the multiple needs of parents, children and

families during FDC participation, and to provide ongoing

support for continued success after family members have

completed their FDC services.


#8

Note: Difference is significant as a trend at p<.15

Drug Courts That Had Formal Partnerships

with Community Organizations Had

More Than Twice the Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Drug court has formal partnerships in communityN=15

Drug court doees NOT have formal partnershipsN=5

35%

15%


SELF-ASSESSMENT


Implement Funding and

Sustainability Strategies#9Sustainability planning must address financial needs as

well as support from a broad range of stakeholders.

FDCs must have access to the full range of funding,

staffing and community resources required to sustain its

innovative approaches over the long term. FDCs need a

governance structure that ensures ongoing commitment

from policy makers, managers, community partners and

operational staff members.

Key Component 9: Continuing interdisciplinary education


Sustainability Results

73.2 %

of the major services and activities provided as part of

the grant were sustained

53.3 % sustainedspecific components or a scaled down or modified version of their program

model

33.3 %

sustained their project in its current form or model

beyond their grant period

11.1% were not able

to sustain any of their program

Of the 44 regional partnerships whose

grants were not extended:

Successful Financing StrategiesWidening the definition of available or

potential resourcesConnecting with other related grants or initiatives

Changing the business as usual practices

to incorporate RPG innovationsIncorporating RPG efforts within their own agency

Integrating with other child welfare

systems improvements

Transitioning services and staff to other partner

organizations

Negotiating third party payments for

what the grant had initiated

Joining with larger health care reform and care

coordination efforts

Institutionalizing RPG practices into

existing systems of careThird-party billing, Medi-caid

Redirecting existing, currently funded resources to adopt new case management and client

engagement strategies

Evaluate Shared Outcomes to

Ensure Accountability

FDCs must demonstrate that they have achieved desired

results as defined across partner agencies by agreeing on

goals and establishing performance measures with their

partners to ensure joint accountability. FDCs develop

and measure outcomes and use evaluation results to guide

their work. FDCs must continually evaluate their

outcomes and modify their programs accordingly to

ensure continued success.

Key Component 8: Monitoring and evaluation

#10


Program reviews their own statsN=20

Program does NOT review statsN=15

37%

16%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

Drug Courts Where Review of The Data

and Stats Has Led to Modifications in Drug

Court Operations had a 131% Increase in

Cost Savings


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Used evaluation to make modifications toprogram

N=18

Did NOT use evaluation to make modificationsN=13

36%

18%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gs

#2 Drug Courts Where the Results of

Program Evaluations Have Led to

Modifications in Drug Court Operations

Had a 100% Increase in Cost Savings

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Program usespaper files

N=8

Program haselectronic database

N=3

20%

33%

Pe

rce

nt

incr

eas

e in

co

st s

avin

gsDrug Courts That Used Paper Files

Rather Than Electronic Databases Had

65% LESS Savings


Questions & Discussion

Which of the 10 Recommendations?

• All recommendations are interrelated

• Several themes apply across

recommendations

• Considerations:

Resources available

Target Population


SELF-ASSESSMENT

• Designed to assist FDC Practitioners in assessing their own policies, procedures and operations based on the FDC Guidelines

• Please contact us: [email protected]

FDC Discipline Specific Orientation Materials

Child Welfare | AOD Treatment | Judges | Attorneys

Please visit: www.cffutures.org/fdc/

Resources

FAMILY DRUG COURTPEER LEARNING COURT PROGRAM

King County, WA

Baltimore City, MDJackson County, MO

Chatham County, GA

Pima County, AZ

Wapello County, IA

Miami-Dade, FL

Jefferson County, AL

Dunklin County, MO

CONTACT US FOR MORE INFORMATION:

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

• FDC Peer Learning Court

• FDC Podcasts

• Leadership Resources

• FDC Video features

• Webinar registration information

FDC Learning Academy BlogLeading Change

www.familydrugcourts.blogspot.com

2015

National Center on Substance Abuse and Child WelfareOnline Tutorial: Understanding Substance Use Disorders, Treatment and Family

Recovery: A Guide for Legal Professionals

• Roles of Child Welfare and Substance Abuse Treatment Professionals

• Engaging and Retaining Families

• Impact of alcohol and drug addiction on children and families

• Principles of addiction and recovery

• Child Welfare Timetables – ASFA Guidelines

• Cross-system communication and collaboration

Earn 6 CLEs Free!

Visit: http://ncsacw.samhsa.gov/training/default.aspx

1. Understanding Substance Abuse and Facilitating Recovery: A Guide for Child Welfare Workers

2. Understanding Child Welfare and the Dependency Court: A Guide for Substance Abuse Treatment Professionals

3. Understanding Substance Use Disorders, Treatment and Family Recovery: A Guide for Legal Professionals

Please visit: http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/

NCSACW Online Tutorials

Resources

Family Drug Court Online Tutorial

FDC 101 – will cover basic knowledge of the FDC model and operations

117

Contact Information

Phil Breitenbucher, MSWChildren and Family Futures

25371 Commercentre Drive, Suite 140

Lake Forest, CA 92630

(714) 505-3525

[email protected]

Shannon Carey, PhD

NPC Research

Executive Vice President

Senior Research Associate

NPC Research

www.npcresearch.com

FDC Best Practices - Children and Family Futures · 10 Key Components for Drug Courts 1. Integrate...

Documents

Transcript of FDC Best Practices - Children and Family Futures · 10 Key Components for Drug Courts 1. Integrate...