New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court Process Evaluation Report

Transcription

1 New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court Process Evaluation Report 2005 Prepared by innovation Research & Training, Inc. Address: 1415 W NC Highway 54 Suite 121, Durham, NC Voice: Fax:

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION... 4 PURPOSE...4 MISSION...4 PROGRAM GOALS...4 HISTORY OF NEW HANOVER ADULT DRUG TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM...5 HISTORY OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MODIFICATIONS...6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES USED IN THE PROCESS EVALUATION... 7 PLANNING AND ORIENTATION...7 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS...7 DESCRIPTION OF DRUG COURT TEAM COMPOSITION, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEAM MEMBERS...10 BACKGROUND TRAINING AND CONTINUING EDUCATION...12 Drug Court Judge...13 Assistant District Attorney...13 Defense Attorney...13 Probation Officer...14 Treatment Counselor...14 Case Manager...14 Street Walker s Addiction Task Force Case Manager...14 Program Director...14 STABILITY OF NHADTC TEAM MEMBERS...15 FUNCTIONING OF NHADTC TEAM...15 Conclusions and Recommendations...19 CHARACTERISTICS OF DRUG COURT PARTICIPANTS Demographics and Background Characteristics...21 Participant Referral Information...26 Participant Eligibility...28 Processing of Participants...28 Participant Termination Information...29 SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS AND BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS DATA...32 DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT PROGRAM PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS...34 PROGRAM OVERVIEW...35 ADMISSION / INTAKE...36 PROGRAM CAPACITY...36 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA...37 DRUG COURT CONTRACT...37 DRUG COURT PHASE SYSTEM...37 TREATMENT: AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES

3 ANCILLARY SERVICES...39 Conclusions and Recommendations...40 SANCTIONS...40 INCENTIVES / REWARDS...41 Conclusions and Recommendations...42 CASE MANAGEMENT AND JUDICIAL SUPERVISION...43 REVOCATION...44 GRADUATION...45 AFTERCARE...45 LOCAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE...46 Conclusions and Recommendations...46 GLOBAL IMPRESSIONS ABOUT THE NHADTC PROGRAM AS REPORTED BY TEAM MEMBERS...48 AS REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS...48 Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire Results...50 EVALUATION OF KEY COMPONENTS KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT KEY COMPONENT OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS...55 RECOMMENDATIONS...ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. APPENDIX A

4 New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court Process Evaluation Report Executive Summary Purpose: To describe the operation of the New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court To compare the implementation of the court with the stated mission, goals, and operations described in program grants, manuals, handbooks, and mandates To examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current implementation of the court To make recommendations regarding possible improvements to the current court structure and operation Background: The New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court was one of the first drug treatment courts in North Carolina. Established as an alternative to incarceration for drug addicted offenders, it aimed to improve individual offender outcomes by providing treatment and rehabilitative services under supervision of the court. It also hoped to benefit the judicial system and the community by saving money. Method: Individual interviews were conducted with court team members, former participants, and an AOC representative. Data from current court participants was gathered from focus groups and consumer satisfaction surveys. Court proceedings and two pre-court team meetings were observed. Demographic characteristics and background information were obtained from court records. Key Findings: The team is stable, dedicated, and has been very proactive in responding to participant needs. The team has established linkages with local specialized treatment programs, developed an innovative treatment program for Streetwalkers, and recently implemented an aftercare program. Although team members communicate effectively in meetings, conflicting schedules have led to frequent absences by at least one team member at the pre-court team meetings. Ultimately, this may interfere with the good communication and consensus decision-making reported and observed. The treatment court emphasizes incentives more than sanctions to facilitating participant recovery. The team has been proactive and creative in obtaining support from local businesses, which has allowed it to use gift certificates for food and entertainment as incentives. The team has tried unproven sanctions for negative participant behavior. The team may benefit from evaluating the effectiveness of these sanctions. Given the team s interest in finding new methods of behavior management, it might benefit from more in-depth training. Some team members expressed frustration that non-compliant participants are retained in the program for too long. The team might benefit from discussing and developing a revocation policy. Participant satisfaction is very high. Conclusions: The team is generally meeting its program goals and objectives, but it might benefit from a team retreat to discuss some of the policies and issues raised by this evaluation. 3

5 New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court Process Evaluation Report Introduction Purpose The primary purpose of this process evaluation report is to describe the structure, organization, and operations of the New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court (NHADTC) and also to identify the strengths and barriers of the court. The North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts and the Bureau of Justice Assistance require periodic process evaluations, and this practice is supported by the North Carolina Governor s Crime Commission. A drug court process evaluation documents and describes the current court operation, its strengths, and the areas in which it could improve its functioning. Based on observations, interviews, and analyses of quantitative data, recommendations are made for improvements to the organization, structure, and overall operation of the program. It may also comment on the match between stated treatment goals and court functioning. A process evaluation differs from an outcome evaluation in that it does not examine and evaluate the effectiveness of the drug treatment court in terms of reducing recidivism, substance abuse, and addiction. At various points within this report, excerpts from program materials and from interviews are reported verbatim in order to retain the nuances intended by the court or by the interviewee. This report describes the results of the process evaluation conducted on the functioning of the NHADTC. Mission The mission of the NHADTC, as stated in the Participant Handbook: The mission of the New Hanover County Drug Treatment Court is to reduce recidivism by supporting a drug and alcohol-free lifestyle for addicted offenders. In other words, to stop the abuse of drugs and alcohol and related criminal activity and to provide support and assistance to addicted offenders in their recovery process. Program Goals North Carolina Adult Drug Treatment Court Goals The goals of Adult Drug Treatment Courts in North Carolina, as adopted by the State legislature and recorded in the Report on the Status of North Carolina s Pilot Drug Treatment Court Program (1998), are as follows: 4

6 1. To reduce alcoholism and other drug dependencies among offenders; 2. To reduce recidivism; 3. To reduce the drug-related court workload; 4. To increase the personal, familial, and societal accountability of offenders; and 5. To promote effective interaction and use of resources among criminal justice personnel Local Program Goals and Objectives As stated in the New Hanover County Participant Handbook, the New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court program was developed to establish and increase recovery options for substance abusing offenders and those close to them; to reduce recidivism in the criminal justice system; to provide an improved sanction beyond regular probation; and to provide better justice for the community. Conclusions and Recommendations The New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court (NHADTC) is functioning in a manner consistent with the goals and objectives set forth in their program handbook and in state legislation. Although the mission espoused by the NHADTC is more limited in scope than the goals and objectives mandated by the legislature, the court may aspire to these other goals as well. Success in meeting these goals is beyond the scope of the current evaluation. History of New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court Program The New Hanover (District 5) Adult Drug Treatment Court program was one of the original five Drug Court Programs in North Carolina. The court began operation in May of 1997 under the direction of Coastal Horizons, a non-profit organization. Coastal Horizons started the court with grant money it obtained from the Governor s Crime Commission (GCC) in that year. In 2002, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) took over the management and financing of the NHADTC program from Coastal Horizons. This occurred for two reasons. First, the team reported that the AOC seemed a more stable source of funding, and second, the change in management reduced the potential conflict of interest which occurs when the treatment provider is also the manager of the court. This potential conflict occurs when those served by the court are better served by specialty treatments offered by a different treatment provider. Referring these offenders for services outside of the main treatment provider would result in a loss of revenue. With the change in management in 2002, Coastal Horizons remained involved as the primary, but not the sole treatment provider. Currently, Coastal Horizons has a contract with the AOC to provide services to the court s offenders. In addition to the AOC funds, the NHADTC continues to receive funding from the GCC, which in 2004, granted the court $60,000 (75% of its budget). Additional funds and office space was donated by the City of Wilmington Police Department. 5

7 History of Program Implementation and Modifications With the change in management in 2002, several related changes were implemented. Although Coastal Horizons remained a primary treatment provider, additional treatment services were added to the array of those available. This change in program structure was and is viewed positively by both the AOC and the team because it has facilitated access to more specialty and gender-focused treatments. In addition, when the change to AOC management occurred, the current Program Director was hired and the current dedicated Probation Officer assigned to serve the court program. The changes they initiated have also been viewed as positive by the team, the AOC, and by participants. These changes include linkages with other treatment providers and ancillary services as well as more frequent and random drug testing. Most participants and team members assert that the drug testing is an essential component to holding participants accountable for their actions, and it facilitates more timely delivery of sanctions. In response to city-wide concerns about the local prostitution problem, a city-sponsored crime summit determined that the drug court program would be the best avenue through which the needs of this group and the city could be addressed. As a result, a grant proposal was written, and the GCC awarded funding specifically for the set-up of the program. The NHADTC started the Street Walkers Addiction Task Force in 2003, and in 2004, it received another $77, from the GCC. This program diverts drug-addicted prostitutes who have felony convictions to the drug court program. 6

8 Methods and Procedures Used in the Process Evaluation Planning and Orientation In order to introduce and orient all relevant staff and team members to the process evaluation, an initial orientation meeting was held prior to beginning the evaluation. Dr. Janis Kupersmidt, President of Innovation Research and Training (IRT) and Project Director for the Process Evaluation and Dr. Jacqueline Hansen, AOC Evaluation Specialist/Research Coordinator convened the initial orientation meeting. Other AOC representatives, representatives of the drug courts being evaluated, and IRT staff involved in the evaluation were also present at the meeting. The agenda for the orientation meeting included a welcome and discussion of the need for the process evaluation; an introduction of IRT team leaders; a description of the respective roles of each entity (e.g., AOC, IRT, and treatment court team members) involved in the process evaluation; the research plan and methods to be used in conducting the evaluation; and the representative tasks and timelines for the evaluation. Treatment Court administrators were informed of the importance of providing all needed information in accordance with the stated timeline due to the brief period of time between data collection and report dissemination. Due to the stringent nature of the timeline, any materials that were not received from the courts by the stated deadline were not included in the final report. Data Collection and Analysis There were three types of data and methods used to collect and analyze data for this process evaluation report: quantitative data, qualitative data and observational data. The collection and analysis of each of these forms of data is discussed in detail in the following sections. Quantitative data. Quantitative data and methods were used to describe the population that has been served by New Hanover Adult Drug Treatment Court from its inception to February, 2005, and to begin to describe the characteristics of current, revoked and successfully graduated drug court participants. The data for these quantitative analyses were obtained from the current AOC Evaluation Specialist/Research Coordinator. The quantitative data collected included demographic characteristics of both the ineligible and the eligible populations, information regarding the primary drug of choice for each client, and information regarding the client s history and involvement in the Drug Treatment Court. The original datasets were stripped of identifying information such as names and identification numbers in order to ensure anonymity. A unique but non-identifying identification number was assigned to each participant, and questionnaire data were combined into a single database using this number. Analyses were conducted to describe the demographic and background characteristics of clients, such as age, race/ethnicity, educational and employment status, primary drug of choice of drug court participants, and trends related to program capacity and compliance. In addition, quantitative data methods were used to describe participants level of satisfaction with their treatment court experience. Current participants completed a Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire at the close of a designated court session. The Customer Satisfaction Survey asked participants to provide information regarding their demographic and background characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, employment status, marital status and family composition. In 7

9 addition, the survey asked participants to report on different aspects of their treatment court experience, such as length of time spent in court, primary drug-of-choice, criminal charges that led to drug court sentencing, and criminal and treatment histories. Participants were then asked to rate their level of satisfaction with various aspects of the drug court program, including treatment services, sanctions and incentives, drug testing, community service activities, and court sessions. Finally, participants were asked to rate the level of difficulty of complying with various program requirements, including making it to scheduled appointments, cooperating with treatment programs and services, cooperating with drug testing, paying court fines and fees, and staying clean, sober and drug-free. Analyses were conducted to describe mean-level differences and similarities between participants in terms of age, race, ethnicity, gender and primary drug-of-choice. The Customer Satisfaction Survey can be seen in Appendix A. Qualitative data. Qualitative data were also collected based upon three different types of openended interviews. First, two one-hour focus groups were conducted with two groups of between eight and ten current program participants. The Moderator s Guide used in conducting the interviews covered topics such as the most and least helpful aspects of the Drug Treatment Court program, barriers to full program participation, feedback about sanctions and incentives, and the impact of the drug court on participants lives. The focus groups were conducted in the group therapy rooms at the treatment site and were led by trained project staff members from irt. Prior to beginning the focus groups, the moderators reviewed the informed consent forms with focus group members and answered participants questions. Then, the moderators followed the protocol outlined in the Moderator s Guide. Additionally, five NHADTC graduated participants were scheduled by the Program Director for individual interviews with irt staff. This sample of graduated participants was selected by the Program Director on the basis of availability, and those interviewed varied in gender, race, and drug-of-choice. The graduates were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Trained project staff members from irt conducted the interviews in person. Three of these interviews took place at the office of the Program Director, and two took place at the treatment center. The interview covered such topics as the most and least helpful aspects of the Drug Treatment Court program, barriers to participation in the drug court program, feedback about sanctions and incentives, and how the drug court has impacted the lives of the participants. Prior to beginning the interview, the interviewer reviewed the informed consent form with the participant and answered any questions. The interviewer then followed the protocol outlined in the interview guide to complete the interview. The Program Director also provided identifying information for four women serving their sentences at the Women s Prison in Wake County, North Carolina. irt staff contacted the prison to obtain approval to interview these inmates for research purposes; however, given the short time frame for the process evaluation and the need for an IRB review by the prison, it was not possible to interview these revoked participants prior to the end of the evaluation. Finally, individual interviews lasting one to two hours were conducted with eight Drug Court team members. The semi-structured interviews covered topics such as program history, the most and least helpful aspects of the Drug Treatment Court program, the respective roles of team members, barriers to implementing the drug court program, feedback about sanctions and incentives, and how the drug court has impacted participants lives. Individual interviews were conducted either in team members offices or by telephone, and were led by trained project staff members from irt. Prior to 8

10 beginning the interview, the interviewer reviewed the informed consent form with the staff member being interviewed and answered any questions. Then, the interviewer followed the protocol outlined in the interview guide to complete the interview. Responses to each question were transcribed and recorded into a database so that answers could be compared across current participants, team members, and former participants. If all respondents agreed on an item, then it was reported as such. Cases in which there was disagreement across respondents were noted and described in the text. Observational data. Observational methods were used to gather information regarding the processes used in pre-court team meetings and in court sessions. For the pre-court team meetings, trained irt staff observed and noted the types of issues discussed and the amount of time spent on each issue, the decision-making process, the interaction among team members, and the respective roles of each of the team members. Information was recorded using the Team Meeting Observation Checklist, designed by irt. For the court sessions, trained irt staff observed rated the overall atmosphere within the court, the interaction among team members, and interactions between the Judge and the participants. Information was recorded using the Observational Coding Sheet for Court Proceedings, designed by irt. Historical Information. Documents pertaining to the history, implementation, modification and funding of the court were also analyzed for this process evaluation. Documents reviewed included original grant proposals submitted for the implementation of the court, award letters for grants received, Advisory Board meeting minutes, program manuals, participant contracts and SCOT analyses. In addition, a representative from the AOC was interviewed regarding historical information about the formation and implementation of the court. Trained irt staff members collected, reviewed and incorporated information from these sources into the process evaluation, where appropriate. 9

11 Description of Drug Court Team Composition, Roles, and Responsibilities of Team Members All NHADTC core team members were identified and interviewed regarding the roles and responsibilities of each team member in the program. The drug court team consists of the presiding Judge, an Assistant District Attorney, a Defense Attorney, a Probation Officer, a Treatment Counselor, a Case Manager, a Case Manager for the Street Walker s Addiction Task Force project, and the Program Director. The core drug court team meets for two hours bi-weekly the day before drug court is held. The role of each member of the core drug court team is described below based on the Best Practices for Model Drug Treatment Courts (Administrative Office of the Courts, 2004), and on information from observations made by irt staff, and interviews with the team members and participants themselves. According to Best Practices, the role of the presiding judge is to motivate participants towards success while holding them accountable for their actions within the program elements. In addition, it also states that the judge is to monitor the progress of participants, primarily through the biweekly court sessions, and through prescription of sanctions and incentives. According to all sources (i.e. irt observations, and interviews with team members and participants) the current Judge fulfills his role. In addition, the current Judge sees it as his role to take responsibility for inspiring the participants of drug court to succeed, and he sets the criteria for success. He encourages the participants to maximize their potential, and, in his words, to push past their perceptions of their limitations. The Judge reports that he is a caring figure, who acts as authoritative coach with each participant. According to the majority of the team members and the participants themselves, the Judge s interaction with the participants is one of the most valuable aspects of the program. The Judge reports that he tries to attend every team meeting, but that sometimes he has conflicting judicial obligations in Pender County. When the Judge is required to be out-of-the-county during the meeting time, he leads the decision-making process via speakerphone. The Judge had to participate by speakerphone both times that the process evaluators observed the treatment team meeting. Despite the fact that the Judge is not always able to be physically present for meetings, none of the team members reported that talking by speaker-phone hindered effective team decision-making. According to Best Practices, the role of the assistant district attorney (ADA), or the prosecutor, is to hold drug court participants accountable for their actions in accordance with the law, and to protect the rights of any victims that may be involved in any of the drug court cases. According to all sources (i.e. irt observations, and interviews with team members and participants), the current ADA fulfills his role. In addition, the current ADA sees himself as the gatekeeper of drug court, and is responsible for determining who ultimately gets into drug court. The current ADA also stated that he is responsible for holding revocation hearings when someone has not been in compliance with the rules and regulations of drug court. According to Best Practices, the role of the defense attorney is to ensure that the rights of the participants are protected through every step of the drug court program, and to aid in the achievement of the participants long-range rehabilitative goals. According to all sources (i.e. irt observations, and interviews with team members and participants), the current Defense Attorney is 10

12 fulfilling her role as well as she can given that the NHADTC is working at a capacity that necessitates two defense attorneys. The team members reported that in the past they have always had at least two, and that they are currently recruiting a second dedicated defense attorney. According to Best Practices, the role of the probation officer (PO) is to supervise the participants and insure accountability. In addition, it states that the probation officer should provide supervision techniques and assistance to the other members of the drug court team. According to all sources (i.e. irt observations, and interviews with team members and participants), the current PO fulfills his role; however, the team reported that he is overworked due to the currently large drug court caseload. As a result, the team has requested that an additional PO be assigned to work with the drug court program. Although Best Practices outlines specific services that must be provided by one or more treatment agencies, it does not require that a representative from the treatment agency be part of the core drug court team; therefore, Best Practice Guidelines do not give a description of this person s role on the team. However, it is a common practice of drug courts to include the treatment counselor on the team. By having the treatment provider participate in team meetings, communication between the judicial and mental health systems is more timely and direct. Ultimately, this facilitates a more integrated decision-making process related to decisions regarding sanctions, incentives, and outcomes. The current Treatment Counselor on the NHADTC team is a representative from one of the program s primary treatment providers, Coastal Horizons. As described by the Treatment Counselor, it is his responsibility to provide all participants who are referred to him with initial screening and assessment, and assignment to group therapy and individual counseling, which he provides. He also commented that an important aspect of his role is developing a relationship with the participants so that they trust him and remain motivated and engaged in the program. According to Best Practices, the role of a case manager is to maintain a caseload of active participants, and to maintain accurate and current records on each of the participants in the caseload. Additionally, it states that the case manager will aid in communicating necessary participant information to the team, and will complete any tasks assigned by the Program Director. The NHADTC program currently has two Case Managers, one for the Street Walker s Addiction Task Force caseload, and one for the other participants of drug court. According to all sources (i.e. irt observations, and interviews with team members and participants), both of these Case Managers are fulfilling their duties. The current Case Manager for the Street Walker s program is a full-time position, whereas the Case Manager for the remaining drug court participants is a part-time position. The additional responsibilities reported by the Street Walker s Case Manager involve helping the participants obtain housing, incidentals, employment, transportation, and health services. According to Best Practices, the program director is responsible for the daily maintenance of the drug court program. It states that the program director oversees the other drug court team members and ensures that all services are being provided. In addition, the director provides management assistance to the judge, writes reports, and communicates necessary information to the State and to the Local Management Committee concerning any changes in or concerns related to the program. According to all sources (i.e. irt observations, and interviews with team members and participants), the current Program Director excels in fulfilling her job duties. She has been 11

13 described as the go-to person -- someone whom the participants will seek out for help with problems or concerns. According to most of team members and participants, the current Program Director is largely responsible for their satisfaction with the drug court program. Background Training and Continuing Education This section describes the background training, orientation experiences, and continuing education opportunities provided to each of the NHADTC team members. There is no official orientation procedure in place; however, team members have traditionally been oriented to their jobs by shadowing their predecessor, and they become familiar with the team decision-making process and dynamics by and attending the team meetings. All of the team members reported that the training they received in their individual disciplines prior to joining the drug court team provided sufficient knowledge and expertise for the performance of their roles in the drug court program; however, the presiding Judge, reported that attending judicial trainings specifically related to drug treatment court provided him with knowledge critical to his role on the team. Although previous trainings and the informal orientation process was considered adequate by all members of the team, at least one member commented that having a more standardized orientation process might be helpful for new additions to the team. It was suggested that new team members might benefit from learning about the general drug treatment court process as well as receiving an overview of the roles and expectations for each member of the team not just the position that the new member will hold. The on-going training of team members has included attendance at National and State drug court training conferences through the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) and the NC Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). At these conferences, team members have received both role-specific and general trainings on drug treatment courts. Nearly all the participants reported that these trainings were very helpful. After attending the State and National trainings, the team has typically discussed the topics of the trainings during a team meeting in order to re-emphasize what was learned and to discuss ways in which the information learned could be applied to improve program functioning and outcomes. Everyone commented that seeing the other drug courts was helpful and provided a broader perspective on the drug court model. Several members of the team stated that they would like additional training in specific areas. Four different types were mentioned. First, there was a reported a need for more training on the pharmacology of new drugs being used by participants as a means of better understanding the effects and addiction potential of these drugs. The team member who suggested this reported that with the rise in methamphetamine use and the difficulties treating this group, the team needs to learn more about its addiction potential and the new methods of treating this addiction. Another suggestion involved training the team in mental health problems typical of the participant group served. Reportedly, dual diagnoses (offenders with both a substance dependence diagnosis and a different mental health diagnosis) are becoming more prevalent among the offenders treated 12

14 by the NHADTC. At least one team member reported that the team could benefit from learning how to interact effectively with these clients and to learn more about the individual diagnoses, the associated emotional and cognitive problems, and the treatment for these disorders. The mental health diagnoses mentioned as being of most interest were bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety and personality disorders. Several team members reported that using the MIS system was problematic, and one team member indicated a need for additional training in its use. Another team member suggested that every individual working with drug addicted offenders should attend at least five open meetings of AA/NA as a means of enhancing their understanding of and compassion for participants and the recovery process they endure. Finally, in an effort to enhance the participation and effectiveness of the local management committee, a team member suggested that the committee receive training on its role in the DTC. Drug Court Judge The presiding drug court Judge, James H. Faison, III, received his BA in political science and prelaw from North Carolina Central University (NCCU), and in 1987, he obtained his Juris Doctor from NCCU. Shortly after receiving his law degree, he worked for four years as a staff attorney for legal services, which specialized in Social Security, Medicare, and related areas. He also taught courses in paralegal training while an adjunct instructor at Cape Fear Community College. He then worked as an ADA for seven and one-half years before being appointed Judge on July 21 st, In 2002 the citizens of New Hanover and Pender Counties elected him to the District Court Judge position. He attended various Judge s trainings, the Judge s training institute, and the National and State drug court trainings. He began working with the NHADTC as presiding Judge in September 2002, when the previous presiding Judge transferred the job to him. In addition to being a judge, he has also served as a pastor. Since 1998, he has acted as Pastor of Byrd s Chapel Missionary Baptist Church in Rose Hill, North Carolina. He volunteers a great deal of time to community youth organizations and is on the board of many such organizations, including the Lower Cape Fear Hospice Board, and the Board of Directors of the Wilmington Boys and Girls club, among others. He has also received numerous awards for community service, including but not limited to: the Man of the Year Award in 1999, the Cape Fear Community Peace Award in 2003, and the Nelson Mandela Award in Assistant District Attorney The Assistant District Attorney, Patrick Roberts, received his BA in chemical engineering at John s Hopkins, and his law degree from Duke University. He was assigned as the dedicated ADA for the NHADTC court by the DA s office, and he has held this position for little more than one year. Defense Attorney The Defense Attorney, Jana Lucas, received her BA in psychology and her Juris Doctor from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has been working with the NHADTC since the inception of the program. 13

15 Probation Officer The Probation Officer, Dawson Rhoad, received his BA in political science from North Carolina State University in He has been working in probation for nine years and in the drug court program for the past three years. Prior to joining the drug court team, he worked in the area of domestic violence. In addition to serving as the NHADTC probation officer, he is on the faculty of the National Drug Court Institute. In his role as faculty member, he travels to trainings where he instructs and facilitates groups that want to implement new drug court programs. The Probation Officer is a member of several different professional organizations. Treatment Counselor The Treatment Counselor, Willie Miles, attended school in Ohio for two years prior to receiving his BA in social science from Buffalo State University. He also took and completed several law school classes at the University of Buffalo School of Law. From 1989 to 1997, he worked for Buffalo Federation of Neighborhoods as a Senior & Relief Counselor. From 1990 to1997, he also worked for the Community Action Organization in Buffalo, as a Substance Abuse Counselor (for which he is certified). He began working for the NHADTC at its inception. Case Manager The Case Manager, Denise Smith, received her BA in criminal justice from the University of Delaware. From 1993 to 1995 she worked as the TASC Case Manager for Coastal Horizons Center before serving as the Supervising Case Manager there. In this role, she maintained a full caseload, which included intake, assessment, referral, and monitoring of offenders. She also planned directed and managed the daily activities of the programs, as well as ensured that agency and program policies were followed. Beginning in 1998, she worked as the Drug Court Supervisor through Coastal Horizons and was part of the original team that brought drug court to New Hanover County. Street Walker s Addiction Task Force Case Manager The Case Manager, Hope Blevens, for this program received her BA in criminal justice from the University of Central Texas in 1997, and she completed one year of master s work in public administration. For the past five years she has worked in case management. She began working as a part-time Case Manager for the NHADTC in October She then applied for a part-time position with the Wilmington Police Department to initiate the grant for the Street Walker s Addiction Task Force project. When this grant was awarded in July 2004, the position with the Police Department became full-time. Program Director The Program Director, Penny Craver, attended Wake Forest University for two years before transferring to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where she obtained her B.A. in She then attended the University of Alabama, for graduate studies in criminal justice volunteerism. In 1989, she was a Fellow at the North Carolina Institute of Political Leadership in Wilmington, NC. Prior to her current position, she previously worked in the following positions in 14

16 the Department of Corrections in Raleigh, NC: Pre-sentence Diagnostic Case Analyst, Parole Case Analyst, and Program Planning Coordinator. She then worked as a Compensatory Education Instructor for Pender Correctional Facility in Burgaw, NC; then as Director of Criminal Justice Volunteer Services for the Governor s Office of Citizen Affairs, in Raleigh, NC; then as a certified Probation/Parole officer in Wilmington, NC. She began working as the Program Director of the NHADTC in Over the course of her career, she has had a number of professional affiliations. These include the Coastal Advisory Board for Planned Parenthood of the Capitol and Coast (1991 to 1994), the Legislative Study Commissions on Election Laws (1994, Speaker of House appointment), and currently, she is affiliated with the North Carolina Board of Ethics (gubernatorial appointment) and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Stability of NHADTC Team Members The NHADTC team membership has been very stable. Three of eight team members have been involved in the program since its inception, and three more have worked on the team since When the program first began operating, there were as many as six defense attorneys who rotated through the court. The team realized that this was problematic and requested that two defense attorneys be dedicated to drug court. Although this request was successful, there is currently only one dedicated defense attorney on the team. The other, previously dedicated defense attorney was re-appointed to another position in the judicial system. The NHADTC is actively working to replace this attorney. The team is also in the process of finalizing the appointment of a second dedicated probation officer, who is expected to make the caseload more manageable for the current PO. The addition of these team members is intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the court. The current NHADTC team is comprised of individuals who strongly believe in the drug court model and are dedicated to serving their participants. Even so, several team members reported feeling somewhat burned out. At least one team member attributed this to the court s tendency to retain non-compliant participants for too long. As a result, team members continue to devote time and effort to helping participants who do not appear to have benefited from the program even after many months of participation. Several team members reports and observations of the team meetings indicated that at least some staff members feel frustrated and view their efforts with these non-compliant participants as fruitless. Functioning of NHADTC Team The NHADTC team makes decisions regarding individual participant cases during regularly scheduled staffing meetings held bi-weekly the day before each court session. According to the Best Practices for Model Drug Treatment Courts (Administrative Office of the Courts, 2004), the primary responsibility of the core court team is to ensure the effectiveness of each court session, so as to attain the long-range rehabilitative goals of the DTC. Observations of Pre-Court Team Meeting 15

17 In order to evaluate the functioning of the NHADTC team, irt staff members observed the precourt team meeting twice. The first observed team meeting was attended by the Program Director, both the part-time Case Manager and the Street Walker s Addiction Task Force Case Manager; the Assistant District Attorney, the Defense Attorney, and two visiting attorneys prepared to present potential drug court participants. The meeting was facilitated by the Judge via speaker phone. (He was unavailable to meet in person because he was fulfilling another judicial obligation in a nearby county.) The Probation Officer was out-of-town at a National Drug Court Training Institute meeting, and the Treatment Counselor was on jury duty. At the beginning of the first meeting observed, the Program Director provided each of the team members with a copy of the case information data sheets describing the status of each of the participants to be discussed. Forty-two cases were discussed during the two hour-long meeting, with the length of time spent on each case ranging from one to ten minutes. Most participants required only a minute or two of discussion, but when team members differed in their views, especially as it related to revocation, the discussion lasted longer than this. Immediately prior to the meeting, the Judge reviewed the case notes prepared by the Program Director, and he led the team meeting s discussion. The team discussed the progress of each participant in meeting court requirements, and team members were invited to comment on each case. Team members were respectful of each other and allowed each other ample time to speak. Decisions about the participants were reached through informal consensus; however, the Judge led the discussion of appropriate actions to be taken with each participant. When team members voiced opposing viewpoints and could not reach a consensus, the Judge made the final decision based on the information and opinions presented. The meeting was conducted in an organized manner, and overall, team members were professional in their communications with each other about participants. Regarding the decisions made during the meeting, sanctions and incentives were individualized and chosen based on how the participant in question had previously responded to sanctions or incentives. When making these decisions, the team members showed genuine concern for participants and were both knowledgeable and thoughtful in their deliberations. The goal of recovery for the participant was always at the heart of the decision-making process. In general, the team clearly attempted to avoid sanctions that would disrupt the positive aspects of the participants lives, such as their jobs; however, if a participant had not yet shown progress or investment in the program, protecting the participant s job was secondary concern. Although the imposition of sanctions was made on a case-by-case basis, team members clearly tried to impose sanctions and incentives that were fair to the individual as well as consistent with the policies applied to all participants. The rewards were distributed without in-depth discussion. Essentially, the team agreed to give praise and a small gift certificate for food or entertainment to any participant in compliance with program rules and regulations. Due to the absence of several key team members at the first team meeting observed, a second team meeting was observed on March 31, Despite attempts to observe a meeting when all team members were present, this was not possible. On March 31, the Judge was called to preside over court in Pender County. As a result, he joined the meeting after its start by speakerphone. The 16

18 Street Walker s project case manager was not present, and the usual Defense Attorney was not present. When it became clear that the Judge could not join the meeting on time, the program director led the discussion and saved a more thorough discussion of the cases for the time when the Judge could join the meeting. The team discussed the straightforward cases and suggested sanctions or rewards to propose later to the Judge. Midway through the meeting the Judge joined the meeting by speakerphone but did not have a copy of the case information data sheet. The team reviewed what had already been discussed and reviewed each participant s information; however, this format clearly hindered the Judge s participation. When the team quickly reviewed each case and the proposed sanction or reward, the Judge usually agreed without much discussion but sometimes requested an additional condition or aspect to the sanction. Given the anomalous circumstances, the team decision-making process and the Judge s role in the discussion may not have been representative of the usual functioning. Of note, during this team meeting, a team member proposed a sanction that had never been used previously. At the meeting, he expressed frustration about several participants chronic noncompliance and general lack of progress, and this team member wanted to revoke these individuals. The team did not agree to discharge these participants from the program because some members thought there was still some potential for progress. As a result, the team member proposed an alternative sanction that involved his addressing these participants by name in court and telling them publicly that the court was not a country club. Furthermore, it was proposed that they be told they would be revoked unless their behaviors changed immediately. The team agreed to the sanction, as did the Judge when told about it. Although the team agreed to the proposed sanction, it seemed to primarily reflect the perspective of one team member, and the sanction discussed essentially constituted a public warning rather than punishment tied directly to a specific noncompliant behavior. Despite the second observation being potentially unrepresentative of the usual team meeting process, observations from the first and second meeting combined supported the team members description of the decision-making process. The views of the team members follow in the next section. Team Member Views on Team and Court Functioning All team members agreed that decisions are made by consensus during pre-court meetings; however, information is sometimes shared among individual team members between meetings in order to facilitate decision-making. All team members reported that they are given equal opportunity to voice their opinions during discussions. By team report, the Judge has the final say when consensus is not reached and also has the power to veto team decisions. Two of the eight team members reported in their individual interviews that participants are sometimes retained in the program long after they should be revoked. This opinion was supported by the observations of the team meeting in which discussions frequently revolved around participants lack of progress, and team members disagreed about whether these individuals should be revoked. At neither team meeting was a participant revoked as a result of the team discussion. 17

19 The team reported that on occasion in the courtroom, new information will be presented concerning a case, and the Judge may change the decision agreed upon by the team. Although some frustration was expressed with this, no member of the team described this as a problem. The Judge emphasized that he respects the team opinions and is sensitive to the decisions made by consensus; however, when important new information arises in the course of the courtroom proceedings, he revisits the decision made by the group. In these situations, he may delay processing of a participant until the end of the court session. In the meantime, he will consult briefly with the Program Director and other team members who may have relevant case information. He will then re-open discussion of the case at the end of the court session. irt staff observed this process during a court session, and it was in accordance with reports from the team. Team members described the professional relationships among members as the strongest asset of the team. Nearly all the team members said that they are passionate about their jobs and work for the NHADTC because they want to be part of the program. Most of the team members reported that communication is excellent and that information is shared in a timely manner. Overall, the team members reported that they care about and try to support the participants in their recovery, and they reported, genuinely wanting to see the participants succeed. One team member described the team s attitude towards the participants as one of service. Although the team attitude towards participants is reported as positive overall, several of the team members said that the general attitude partly depends on the attitude of individual participants. For instance, when a participant fails to meet program requirements, the team is stern because it believes it can best facilitate recovery in this way. According to one team member, the more honestly a participant communicates with the team, the better able the team is to help that person. The team members indicated that this dynamic is communicated to the participants from the beginning. When asked about having contact with participants outside of the courtroom or general job duties, a few team members expressed concerns either about the appropriateness of their own behaviors or of other team members and their interactions with participants. In one case, a team member reported having heard that the Treatment Counselor spent time watching television at the home of an active participant. The veracity of this information is unknown, and if true does not explicitly violate the code of conduct of the Board of North Carolina Substance Abuse professionals; however, the team member reporting this hearsay incident expressed concern that this behavior, if it truly happened, might be inappropriate. This team member asserted that this behavior would be unethical in his role on the team but was unsure about the ethics of the other s profession. Another concern expressed was that of team members attending AA/NA meetings with participants. Although team members have the right and need to meet their own recovery needs, the team member raising the concerns wondered if this constituted a violation of appropriate professional boundaries. Participant Views on Team Functioning Participant views of the team were assessed from the comments made in two focus groups, consisting of a combined twenty participants, and individual interviews with five graduated participants. Overall, participants seemed very pleased with the NHADTC team members. They described the team members as being respectful, helpful, caring, supportive, and like family. 18