children and family futures - a national look at the past, present, future … · 2017. 8. 29. ·...
TRANSCRIPT
1
A National Look at thePast, Present, Future
Nancy K. Young, Ph.D.Executive Director,
Children and Family Futures
of Family Drug Courts
Children and Family Futures
The Past
How did the FDC movement get here? Why the rapid growth? What happened?
The Birth of the FDC Movement
• First FDCs convened in Reno, Nevada and Florida in 1994 -1995
– Judges Charles McGee & John Parnham
– Judges Pach, Edwards, Milliken, Cohen, Ray, Thomas Merrigan and Commissioner Molly Merrigan
3
The Birth of the FDC Movement
• First FDCs took concepts developed in criminal and then juvenile drug courts applying a collaborative approach to therapeutic jurisprudence
The “study of the role of the law as a therapeutic agent.” It focuses on the law’s impact on emotional life and on the psychological well‐being of the individual – the impact on the “whole person ”
4
whole person.
David Wexler – Therapeutic Jurisprudence: An overview. Paper delivered to the National Institute of Mental Health in 1987. Along with Professor Bruce Winick, University of Miami School of Law, who originated the concept with Wexler.
2
“The family drug court, although similar to the adult drug court in terms of services and protocols
The Birth of the FDC Movement
drug court in terms of services and protocols, usually focuses on the "best interests of the child" … and this focus is the court's paramount consideration in responding to the progress -- or lack thereof -- of the parent.”
Caroline S. Cooper, Coordinator, 1995 SJI National Symposium on the Implementation& Operation of Drug Courts; and Director, OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse andTechnical Assistance Project School of Public Affairs/American UniversityJune 2000
The Birth of the FDC Movement
• Focused on early intervention and treatment based on a comprehensive needs assessmentbased on a comprehensive needs assessment and case plan
• Client and system accountability for compliance through frequent court appearances
6
January 1994
• “Call Me Tuesday”
Key Initial FDC Concepts
8
3
321350
The FDC Movement
# of FDCs
40
153
321
100
150
200
250
300
350
1040
0
50
1999 2001 2005 2010
Common VisionExtraordinary Effort
Three Systems ith lti lwith multiple:
• Mandates• Training • Values• Timing
Drug Treatment
10
Timing • Methods
New Partnerships,Creative Approaches
The need for immediate and
efficient intervention became
overwhelming important in the
face of implementing the
11
implementing the Adoption and Safe
Families Act
Implications of ASFA (1997)
• Adoption and Safe Families Act, enacted in 1997 sought to address:- Cases lingering in the court system as parents cycled
in and out of treatment- Children left in foster care for months or even years –
(aka foster care drift)• Emphasis on establishing permanency within federally
mandated timeframes
12
mandated timeframes• Created a need to find effective responses to substance
abuse and child maltreatment within families
4
AFSA Clock
• In general, FDC’s strive to provide safe and stable permanent re nificationpermanent reunification with a parent in recovery within the time frames established by ASFA
• Responses aim to enhance the likelihood that the family can bethat the family can be reunited before the ASFA clock requires an alternative permanent plan for the child
13
The Most Important Clock
• The one that’s ticking on us• How long do we have to act if ourHow long do we have to act if our
families have • 24 months to work and • 12 months to reunify?
• Taking this clock seriously meansthat we take aggressive action to reconcile the clocks on children and families
14
Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground
• Report to Congress in response to the Adoption and Safe Families Act (AFSA) 1999
• Five National Goals established
1. Building collaborative relationships
2. Assuring timely access to comprehensive substance abuse treatment services
3 Improving our ability to engage and retain clients in3. Improving our ability to engage and retain clients in care and to support ongoing recovery
4. Enhancing children’s services
5. Filling information gaps
Leadership of Federal Government on Substance Abuse & Child Welfare Issues
1999 Report to Congress: 2000 2001
2002-2007 National Center
2007-2012 Re-funding
Blending Perspectives and Building
Common Ground
2000-2001 Regional State Team Forums
National Center on Substance
Abuse and Child Welfare
National Center on Substance
Abuse and Child Welfare
2007 2012 2000 20142007-2012Regional
Partnership Grants
2000-2014SAMHSA /
CSATCAM Grants
2010-2012OJP / OJJDP FDCP Grants
5
Common Ingredients of Family Drug Courts in
2002 Process Evaluation
System of identifying familiesSystem of identifying families
Earlier access to assessment and treatment servicesEarlier access to assessment and treatment services
Increased management of recovery services and complianceIncreased management of recovery services and compliance
Responses to participant behaviors (sanctions & incentives)Responses to participant behaviors (sanctions & incentives)
17
Increased judicial oversightIncreased judicial oversight
Common FDC Outcomes
Safety (CWS)
Permanency (Court)
Recovery (AODS)( )
• Reduce re-entry into foster care
• Decrease recurrence of abuse/neglect
( )
• Reduce time to reunification
• Reduce time to permanency
• Reduce days in care
( )
• Increase engagement and retention in treatment
• Increase number of negative UA’s
18
g• Increase
number of graduates
The Present
What do we know now? Where are we? What’s being done? What are the needs?
Family Drug Courts - Nationwide
New York - 55
California - 56
Florida - 22
13 States report no FDCs
California, New York, Florida- 40% of all FDCs in USSource:
National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) Survey, 2010
321 FDCs in 27 States
6
Family Drug Courts - Nationwide
New York - 55
California - 56
Florida - 22
1-5 6-10 11-19
Zero FDCs reported
20 +Source: National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) Survey, 2010
Federal‐Funded FDC Projects
US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services AdministrationAdministration for Children and Familieswww.samhsa.gov
OJJDP Sites, n=14
RPG, Drug Court Cluster, n=10*
RPG w/FDC Component,n=10
*RPG N=29; 4 sites operating multiple FDCSOJJDP, n=22
LEGEND, N=58
IDTA FDC, n=4
CFF FDC Evaluation,N=5
CAM, n=12
Family Drug Court Models • Dependency
matters• Recovery
management
• Dependency matters
• Specialized court services offered
• Dependency mattersRecovery
• Dependency matters
• Recovery g• Same
court, same judicial officer during initial phase
• Non-compliant case transferred to specialized judicial officer
services offered before noncompliance occurs
• Compliance reviews and recovery management heard by specialized court
• Recovery management
• Same court, same judicial officer
management• Same
court, same judicial officer
• Non-compliant case transferred to Presiding Judge or another court
DUAL TRACK PARALLEL
officer
INTEGRATED HOME COURT INTENSIVE
2009-10 OJJDP FDCP Training and Technical Assistance Program
Online Survey• 86 responses
Site Interviews• 14 interviews
Stakeholder Interviews• 9 interviews
Review of FDC TTA Requests
24
FDC Needs Assessment Process
7
A Snapshot of Challenges and Barriers Faced by Family Drug Courts
FDC Needs AssessmentSite visits data andSite visits, data, and
observation Technical assistance
requests
FDCP Needs Assessment Findings: Challenges and Barriers
Screening - Assessment - Referral Processes• Target population and process for identifying FDC clients• Target population and process for identifying FDC clients
is often unclear or inconsistently applied• No standardized screening for substance use disorders
prior to referral to FDC• Sites are not at capacity and/or it is unclear how capacity
rates have been establishedS f
26
• Sites have exclusion criteria for serious mental health issues, felonies, and domestic violence; others deal with these as co-occurring issues
Engaging and Retaining Clients• Clients are given phone numbers or list of resources
FDCP Needs Assessment Findings: Challenges and Barriers
• Clients are given phone numbers or list of resources and instructed to call for assessment
• Clients report lack of understanding with FDC requirements and expectations - especially in the beginning
• No clear incentives for client participationf (• Time of groups; competing priorities (e.g. work vs.
FDC requirements)• Issues of treatment availability and quality
Comprehensive Programs – Children’s Services• Very little mention of services to children, though
FDCP Needs Assessment Findings: Challenges and Barriers
Very little mention of services to children, though serving the family is one of primary differences between adult and FDC
• A few sites focus on 0-3, 0-5 and Substance Exposed Newborns with partnerships that focus on parent/child interaction and developmental/health programs for young children.p og a s o you g c d e
8
Collaboration Challenges• Lack of or inconsistent participation or buy-in from
FDCP Needs Assessment Findings: Challenges and Barriers
one or more critical partners: child welfare, substance abuse treatment, judges, attorneys
• Confidentiality issues not resolved; information and data sharing problems
• Competing timeframes, lack of coordinated case planning
• Time to meet as team• Lack of appropriate community resources• Issues of collaboration among agencies in
understanding and working toward shared outcomes
Performance Measures/Data Collection• Lack of prevalence data demonstrating the extent of
FDCP Needs Assessment Findings: Challenges and Barriers
• Lack of prevalence data demonstrating the extent of substance abuse among child welfare population
• No uniform data collection; inability to measure effectiveness of program
• Lack of long-term data on child welfare and recovery outcomes; only while client is enrolled in FDCFDC
Budget and Sustainability• Need for ongoing champions; challenge with
FDCP Needs Assessment Findings: Challenges and Barriers
• Need for ongoing champions; challenge with turnover of judges
• Some FDCs operate as “projects” or “boutique courts”
• Inherent limitations on scale and scope in some FDC models
f• No standardized cost analysis of total program cost or cost savings
• Lack of sufficient data on program effectiveness• Resource problems worsened by State and local
fiscal crises
Recent Drug Court Evaluations*
• Majority (32 or 67%) of states report lack of recent evaluation*
• 16 or 33% states report having done recent evaluations*:• Alaska and Maine reported specific evaluations of
family dependency courts• 14 other states reported general evaluations such
as process, outcome, and cost-benefit evaluations, juvenile delinquency court evaluations and
32
juvenile delinquency court evaluations, and statewide evaluation programs (without specifying for which specialty court)*
*Not Family Drug Court specificSource: National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) Survey, 2010
9
Common Factors: Success in Enrollment into FDC
• Strengthening of existing collaborative relationships orcollaborative relationships or establishing new collaborative relationships with new partners or referral sources
• Strong pre-existing collaboration or establishedcollaboration or established presence in the community
33
Common Barriers in Enrolling Families into FDC
Most common barriers included:• Getting referrals from Child Welfare Services• Difficulty engaging clients once referred,
retaining clients once enrolled, and tracking client drop-off points
34
Larger Contextual/Community Events Impacting FDC Programs
• State, County or other agency budget cuts or l fflayoffs
• Legislative or policy changes • State, County or other agency personnel
changes • Service provider changes or issues
35
• New grant or related initiative in community/region
Larger Contextual/Community Events Impacting FDC Programs
community/region• Broader economic climate in target communities
– Unemployment and job-related issues• Changes in child welfare trends/caseloads
36
10
Key Issues & Challenges Facing FDC
Scale and Scope; Project vs. System
Scale and Scope Challenges
Scale: To what extent can FDCs respond to the full range of treatment needs among the child welfare population—as opposed to remaining marginal to the whole system or “boutique courts?”
Scope:
To what extent can FDCs respond to the full range To what extent can FDCs respond to the full range of co-occurring needs among the child welfare population—mental illness, family violence, family income and employment issues, developmental delays?
Current Scale: Do We Know?
• In most states with multiple FDCs, the average size is gunder 30 families per year
• A few larger FDCs may serve as many as 300-400 clients annually in large counties
• The lack of a national data base and in depth data in mostbase and in-depth data in most states on FDC scale means there is no accurate total of FDC clients
The Project vs The System
Some FDCs focus so heavily upon their project that they become isolated from the larger child welfare s stem res lting insystem, resulting in:
• Inability to track impact on the larger system• Inability to develop to large enough scale to
impact larger system
Isolation from the larger child welfare system g yresults in:
• Continued marginalization for families affected by parental substance use
11
Drop off PointsDrop off Points
15,029 cases referredfor SA assessment
11 469 i d SA 11,469 received SA assessment 24% drop off = 3,560
Number referred to SA treatment 7,022
Number made it to SA treatment = 2,744
61% drop off
844 successfully completed SA tx*
Payoff41
* This # may increase slightly as some clients are still enrolled in tx & may successfully complete in the future
The Project vs The System
The lack of Integrated or Coordinated Data and Information systems results in:
Insufficient in depth documentation of treatment and• Insufficient in-depth documentation of treatment and child welfare outcomes to enable evaluation of scale issues over time
• Lack of comparison between FDC child welfare outcomes to the entire child welfare caseload
• Lack of accurate data on caseload overlap among hild lf t t t t l h lth hildchild welfare, treatment, mental health, child
development, and other agencies• Inability to determine if FDC results are able to “move
the needle” in the larger child welfare system
Barriers to Going to Scale
• Preference for manageable caseloads and project-level scale
• Time requirements of intensive client case management
• Lukewarm buy-in from child welfare and treatment agencies, resulting in low referrals or screened-out clients due to narrowed eligibility requirements
• Desire to retain fidelity to an FDC model that may not have been developed at scale
• Inability to sustain funding for an FDC model beyond the level of single project
Barriers to Going to Scale
• Lack of resources or ability to redirect resources.
• Historically, lack of national FDC standards and performance standards; few states have FDC standards
• Limited national data on the b f FDC li t d FDCnumber of FDC clients, and FDC
outcomes• Limited technical assistance
available to FDCs
12
Barriers to Expanding FDC Scope
• Resistance to engaging with other systems– Work load and effort – The “It’s Just one more Thing” Syndrome
• Other agencies’ resistance to coordination with a caseload defined by child welfare
• Clarity in roles and responsibilities
– Assessment of substance use disorders
– Referral to treatment
– Coordination of services (mental health, housing, vocational training, etc.)
• Gaps in resources
So How Did the Big Ones Get So Big?
• Judicial leadership in convening interagency players and tracking outcomes over time
• Child welfare, treatment agency and parents’ attorney buy-in based on recognition that FDCs could directly improve their own outcomes
• Data systems and case management tracking that focused on both FDC project and larger p j gsystem
• Annual evaluations that included cost offset data powerful enough to convince policy leaders to expand FDCs
ChangingThe System
Getting Better at Getting Along: Four Stages of Collaboration
ChangingThe Rules
The System
Shared DataUniversal ScreeningSh d C Pl
FDC Project
Better Outcomes for Children and
Families
InformationExchange
JointProjects
Sid Gardner, 1996Beyond Collaboration to Results
Shared Case Plans
47
• “It doesn’t matter to me if she goes to treatment right away”
“We have a program, but you don’t qualify” – December 2010
– Child’s attorney • “She can’t go to drug court, she’s charged with
child endangerment”– Public Defender
• “She won’t qualify for family drug court becauseShe won t qualify for family drug court because she is was in jail”– CWS Program Manager
13
“We have a program, but you don’t qualify” – December 2010
• “She can’t go to family drug court if she goes to residential” – CWS Program Manager
• “She can’t go to the residential women and children’s program that is funded for CWS families because her child will be 6 years old next October and it’s a year program for mothers with children 5 and under”– Residential Treatment Program Director
Focusing on Institutional Change
While many FDCs are able to “collaborate” at the level of FDC “project,” the ingredients for real
h bsystems change may not yet be present:• Shared outcomes• Universal substance abuse screening for all
parents involved with child welfare• Universal child maltreatment screening for g
parents involved in substance abuse treatment• Joint (SA/CW) case planning and monitoring• Shared data systems
ChangingThe System
Getting Better at Getting Along: Four Stages of Collaboration
ChangingThe Rules
The System
We have a program, but you
don’t qualify
Better Outcomes for Children and
Families
InformationExchange
JointProjects
Sid Gardner, 1996Beyond Collaboration to Results
Call Me Tuesday
51
Family Drug Courts: Past, Present, and Future -Past, Present, and Future
A Judicial Perspective
Judge Leonard P. Edwards Superior Court, Santa Clara County
14
Why Do Judges Like Family Drug Courts?
Why FDCs Need Judicial Leadership and
Support
What Does Judicial Leadership Look Like
• Advocate for systems change• Monitor outcomes across agencies• Engage child welfare director• Engage treatment directly and
through contract process• Support community investment in
systemic change• Speak out in publicSpeak out in public• FDC as the laboratory for change• Make resources available from the
inception and monitor cost savings and offsets
The Future of the FDC Movement
FDCs will continue to grow and flourish
Where are FDCs going? What does the future look like?
56
15
Why Will FDCs Flourish?
• Better treatment engagement, participation, and recovery outcomesrecovery outcomes
• Judicial support• Holistic approach for client and entire family• Benefits children, families, communities• Maximization of collaboration• Community engagement• Personal and professional satisfaction for all
participants
The Future of the FDC Movement
What will they look like?1. They will look more y
and more like treatment courts and less like criminal drug courts.
2. They will have a significant impact on all dependency cases, not just the ones in the treatment court.
58
3. There will be more follow-up, more building a
The Future of the FDC Movement
sober community with events and contacts extending for months and years.
4. There will be more support persons (mentors) for clients. This will include mentors/advocates for children.
5. Treatment beds will be available in most communities so that mothers and infants can start over in a protected environment.
59
6. There will be greater use of group decision making models
The Future of the FDC Movement
making models7. A wider range of
professionals will become involved
8. Special dockets will be developed docketsdeveloped – dockets that address particular populations such as families with new-borns or teenagers 60
16
9. There will be more community involvement
The Future of the FDC Movement
yas community members recognize the importance of supporting families with children.
10. Domestic violence service providers will become a basic part of every treatment court team.61
• Professional satisfaction
Worth the Effort
• FDC will improve the entire dependency process
• Juvenile dependency court the way it should be
• It’s about giving parents a fair g g popportunity to recover and reunify with their children
62
Remaining Challenges for Grantees
• Will FDCs define their client mix to include a significant segment of the CW population needing treatment?
• Will FDCs work closely enough with other agencies to provide needed services for co-occurring problems?
• Will the results of FDCs be significant enough to make an impact on national goals for child welfare and treatment outcomes?
- Expanding timely access to effective treatmentExpanding timely access to effective treatment- Reducing out of home care- Ensuring timely decisions about child safety and permanency?
• Will FDCs reduce out of home care costs?
Piecing Lives Back Together
“Some people say this is about mothersis about mothers getting their kids
back. I think it’s more about
kids getting their mothers back.”
Teenager, Santa Clara County Drug Court
64