Evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program Final report

Transcription

1 Evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program Final report Dr. Stuart Ross, Melbourne Consulting & Custom Programs December 2009

2 Table of Contents Table of Contents...2 Executive Summary...5 Program implementation findings...6 Program outcome findings...12 Recommendations...15 Part 1: Program description...20 Chapter 1 Introduction Description of the Court Integrated Services Program...21 Chapter 2 Case flows & system load Case flow and system load goals CISP program flow processes Referrals to CISP...26 Repeat clients...28 Source of referrals Assessments and assessment outcomes...30 Assessment outcomes Case recommendations and outcomes...31 Engagement rates...32 Consistency in allocation to program level...33 Allocation to program level in relation to clients assessed risk Use of judicial monitoring Program completions...36 Court outcome at CISP exit...38 Time on CISP Commentary on CISP case flow and system load issues...40 Meeting program case flow targets...40 Case flow and judicial support...41 Part 2: CISP Case management and intervention model...43 Chapter 3 Client characteristics and service needs Client demography Prevalence of drug problems Prevalence of alcohol problems...50 Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 2

3 3.4 Prevalence of mental health problems, ABI and intellectual disability...51 Acquired brain injury...53 Intellectual disability Combinations of problems SF-12 survey of client physical and mental health...54 Pre-CISP physical health...55 Pre-CISP mental health...56 Comparing pre- and post-cisp scores Comments on client characteristics and service needs...58 Chapter 4 CISP service model Clinical and procedural basis of CISP...61 Multidisciplinary team approach...61 Workers roles...62 Team leaders...63 Program venues Referrals and interventions Client feedback Support systems...71 Policy and procedures manual...71 Assessment process...71 Platypus Systems Case Management System Recommendations:...74 Chapter 5 Drug and alcohol services Provision of drug and alcohol services Drug and alcohol service needs of CISP clients Service output measures Change in drug and alcohol problems during CISP engagement Relationship between CISP and drug and alcohol agencies Recommendations...83 Chapter 6 Mental Health and Acquired Brain Injury Services Provision of mental health and ABI services Mental health service outputs for CISP clients Service relationships for mental health ABI service outputs for CISP clients...88 Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 3

4 6.5 Service relationships for ABI Recommendations...90 Chapter 7 Accommodation support services Provision of housing services Housing service needs of CISP clients Service output measures Relationship between CISP and housing agencies Access to housing services for CISP clients...98 Chapter 8 Magistrate perspectives on CISP and Therapeutic Jurisprudence Magistrates use of CISP Relationship to practice Satisfaction with CISP services Future directions for CISP Recommendations Chapter 9 Reoffending and compliance outcomes Outcome targets for CISP Outcome assessment methodology Bail compliance Order compliance Re-offending rates Proportion of recidivists Time to re-offence Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 4

5 Executive Summary The Court Integrated Services Program offers a coordinated, team based approach to the assessment and treatment to defendants at the pre-trial or bail stage. It links defendants to support services such as drug and alcohol treatment, crisis accommodation, disability services and mental health services. The program commenced at the beginning of 2007 after an establishment period in late CISP operates at three Victorian Magistrates Court venues: Melbourne, Sunshine and Morwell and is managed within the Court Support and Diversion Services branch of the Magistrates Court of Victoria. This is the final evaluation report on the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). The evaluation commenced in late 2006 and the findings presented here cover the implementation and operation of the program up to the middle of The project specification also included an econometric (cost-effectiveness) component. This was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and is reported separately. Overall, the evaluation found that CISP: had achieved or exceeded its targets for the engagement and retention of clients, was able to match the intensity of intervention to the risk and needs of clients, achieved a high rate of referral of clients to treatment and support services. Other key findings were: A study of CISP clients health and well-being showed they had much lower levels of mental health than comparable community groups and that their mental health improved during their period on the program; Magistrates and other stakeholders showed a high level of support for the program and its outcomes; and compared with offenders at other court venues, offenders who completed CISP showed a significantly lower rate of re-offending in the months after they exited the program. This Executive Summary reports on the evaluation findings against each of the questions or issues specified in the project brief. Findings in relation to program implementation issues are presented first, followed by findings in relation to program outcomes. Each Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 5

6 finding is accompanied by chapter and section references showing where more detailed analysis is presented. The recommendations from the evaluation are presented at the end of this section. Details of the evaluation methods can be found in Appendix 2. Program implementation findings 1. Is the number of defendants being referred to the CISP reflecting those estimated by the demand modelling? If not, what factors are influencing the referral numbers and the apparent variations? There were 2,004 clients referred to CISP in the 2008 year, which is 86% of the target of 2,316 clients set when CISP was established. Referrals at the Latrobe Valley venue exceeded the target by 50% (276 referrals compared with a target of 184) while Sunshine and Melbourne venues achieved 88% and 78% of their referral targets respectively. There was a gradual increase in referrals throughout 2007 and 2008, although these increases were apparent at Sunshine and Latrobe Valley, but not Melbourne (see Chapter 2.8). Generally, the characteristics of the CISP client population reflect the assumption made in the demand modelling for the program. The most significant variation from the demand estimates is in the high rate of clients with possible Acquired Brain Injury. (Chapter 6.4) 2. From which source/s are referrals most commonly originating? Are engagement rates variable according to referral source? Are outcomes linked to referral sources? The majority of referrals (75%) are made by clients legal representatives, with referrals by Magistrates accounting for a further 15% of referrals. Self-referrals make up around 5% of referrals, although it should be noted that some clients who wish to be referred to CISP may ask their legal representative to do this on their behalf. Clients referred by Magistrates have a higher engagement rate than those referred by their legal representative or self-referrals (see Chapter 2.5). There was no variation in program Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 6

7 completion outcomes across the different referral sources. The key factors in determining program outcomes were the offender s custody status and accommodation stability at program entry, and whether CISP was made a bail condition. 3. Is the number and proportion of referred defendants engaging in the CISP reflecting those estimated by the demand modelling? If not, what factors are influencing the variations in engagement rates? Overall, 64% of those referred to CISP become engaged clients. This is greater than the estimated demand modelling take-up rate for referrals of around 60%. Referrals were most frequently found to be unsuitable because the person failed to attend the assessment (41% of unsuitable outcomes), was referred to Forensicare (26% of unsuitable outcomes), or because the referral was withdrawn (22%). Overall, higher risk clients are less likely to become engaged clients. (Chapter 2.4) 4. Are the deviations in referrals and engagement rates proportional across regions? What factors are influencing the variations? What has this highlighted about region-specific needs in relation to various aspects of the CISP? There is significant variation in engagement rates between the three program venues. Engagement rates are around 40 % higher at Sunshine than at Melbourne and this variation cannot be accounted for by differences in clients risk profile or referral source. Proportionately more referred clients at Melbourne fail to attend their assessment, are referred to Forensicare or withdraw their referral application. However, it is unclear why these factors are more prevalent at this venue. (Chapter 2.5) The rate of referral to the Latrobe Valley program site is affected by transport access issues for defendants from communities away from the main Latrobe Valley, and to some extent within the valley. This is mainly an issue of equity of access rather than a limiting factor on overall referral rates at Latrobe Valley, which are higher than anticipated (see Chapter 4.1). Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 7

8 5. Is the CISP receiving priority access to treatment and support services? Is this access adequate and timely? Are there any changes to service-level agreements that would be beneficial? In general, CISP clients receive appropriate and timely referral to treatment and support services. Their engagement with these services is constrained by issues of service availability that are common to all clients of forensic programs. The contracted service agreements have resulted in improved access to accommodation, mental health and ABI assessment services. Access to COATS drug assessment and treatment services is consistent with previous service arrangements under the COATS service protocols. Key problem areas for service access include: Limited availability of places in residential drug and alcohol treatment programs (Chapter 5.5) Very limited availability of long-term housing under the Justice Housing Support Program, and limited availability of emergency and temporary housing in the community (Chapter 7.3) Limited access to mainstream mental health service agencies (Chapter 6.3) 6. Are the existing court services that have integrated into the CISP working effectively? What barriers are evident in achieving a cooperative and co-ordinated response? The CISP teams demonstrate a high degree of integration across the service areas of drugs and alcohol, mental health, disability, indigenous support and accommodation support. The primary barriers to effective team operation is the high level of staff turnover which inhibits the development of stable, productive relationships between team members, and the high level of work demand that means that cases are sometimes assigned to staff members on the basis of availability rather than expertise. (Chapter 4.1) One site-specific gap in the integration of contracted services exists at the Latrobe Valley site where there appears to be limited use of mental health screening services (Chapter 6.3) and limited contact with the accommodation support agency (Chapter 7.4). Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 8

9 7. What assumptions have been made in the development of the CISP Service Delivery Model? The CISP service delivery model is one of a range of clinical and support program service approaches currently operating in Victorian courts. The other examples include CREDIT/Bail Support, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre client services function, Drug Court, Koori Court, and the applicant and defendant support functions for the Family Violence Courts. Each is based on different assumptions and service models, and each involves some specific skill sets. However, underpinning all these services is a general body of clinical knowledge and technique and common case management, support and other court-based functions. It is proposed that there should be a general review of these approaches with a view to creating a court support services function that would provide the basis for the delivery of a range of clinical, support, referral, supervision and case management services to court clients. 8. Are clients being assigned to their appropriate level of intervention? Is this being reflected in retention rates or other outcomes? Engagement at the three program levels is matched to defendants risks (higher risk defendants are engaged at higher program levels). Based on the risk assessment component of the CISP Screening Assessment, clients assigned to the Community Referral program stream are low risk, while those assigned to the Intermediate and intensive stream are medium and high risk respectively. (Chapter 2.5) There is consistency in engagement patterns across the three program venues (Chapter 2.5). Clients assigned to the Intensive program level have a lower completion rate than those assigned to the Intermediate level, but this is consistent with their generally higher level of risk. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 9

10 9. Do Magistrates Court staff, support staff, stakeholders and clients have an awareness and accurate understanding of the CISP? There is a high level of support by Magistrates for the CISP. This is demonstrated by the high rate of agreement between workers recommendations and case outcomes as determined by the court (Chapter 2.8), and an increasing preparedness by Magistrates to refer defendants directly to the program. Overall, external stakeholder knowledge about the CISP is good, with awareness about the program increasing over time. Lawyers continue to be the primary source for referrals to the program, and their engagement is critical to the program s success. There are real differences in approach between CISP and the treatment and support services, especially in relation to accommodation and mental health programs, and this limits the effectiveness of their engagement with CISP. Regular communication with external stakeholders about the program s goals and achievements is required to ensure that stakeholders are able to respond appropriately to CISP s service needs. (refer stakeholder feedback sections in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8) There are significant variations in the way that CISP services are incorporated into court operations. This is primarily the product of the extent to which different Magistrates adopt therapeutic jurisprudence practices. It is particularly important for CISP to communicate its goals and achievements to this audience. However, it must be recognized that the adoption of therapeutic jurisprudence approaches is ultimately the responsibility of the Magistracy, and CISP staff and management should be available to support these developments. (Chapter 8.1, 8.4) The falling rate of judicial monitoring is of concern, although this may represent greater confidence in the capacity of CISP case managers. (Chapter 2.6) 10. Are the Courts satisfied with the quality and timeliness of reporting by the CISP team? Does the CISP meet defendants expectations of service? Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 10

11 Overall, there is a high level of stakeholder satisfaction with the quality and timeliness of reporting by CISP team members. Where there have been problems, these are attributed by stakeholders to the high level of staff turnover in the program and the consequent inexperience of staff responsible for these reports. Case managers should be provided with more explicit criteria to guide decisions about program entry, and more detailed advice about client assessment and reporting procedures. (Chapters 4.3, 8.4) Feedback from clients in the program was generally very positive but the evaluation design did not provide for any systematic assessment of defendants expectations of service. 11. What is the average and range of duration of client engagements by level of intervention? Do these vary by factors such as region or judicial monitoring? The mean period of engagement for clients who completed CISP (from notification of a program place to exit date) was 110 days (3 months and three weeks). For noncompleting clients, the mean number of days from notification to exit was 62. There were no significant differences in time on the program between the three program venues, the Intermediate and intensive program levels, or between clients who were subject to judicial monitoring and those who were not. (Chapter 2.7) 12. Has the integration of various services resulted in a reduction in duplication of assessments for clients, and a reduction in an overlap of referrals? This question is difficult to assess as there are no clear benchmarks for assessment and referral overlaps prior to the program. There is no evidence of duplication in assessments or referrals in the current program. However, it should be noted that some service referrals (accommodation, mental health) need to be supported by continuing case management by CISP. (see generally Chapters 5, 6, and 7) 13. Does the assessment tool utilised by the CISP team capture adequate information? Is the assessment being administered Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 11

12 appropriately? What improvements could be made to the assessment tool? A review of the Screening Assessment in 2008 found that CISP staff members were administering it appropriately. The main weakness was in the collection of risk information, but this appears to have been rectified. A number of refinements were made to the instrument following the 2008 review. Staff members give generally positive reports of the screening instrument, but also report that they find assessment one of the most challenging aspects of their work. It is recommended that the CISP Policy and Procedures Manual should be supplemented with training and procedural advice on assessment procedures and working in a court environment. (Chapter 4.3) Program outcome findings The key outcomes for CISP include individual client outcomes in relation to the needs addressed by intervention and support services, program completions, impact on court workload and other elements of the justice system, bail and order compliance, and reoffending. 14. Do clients show an improvement in social and physical health and well-being, including a reduction in drug use and drug-related harms? There are indications across a number of measures that clients showed improved health and social functioning as a result of involvement in CISP. The SF-12 health and wellbeing survey showed significant improvement in clients reported physical and mental well-being. Case manager assessments show reduced levels of problematic alcohol use. However, there are a number of factors that make assessing the impact of CISP on social, health and substance abuse factors problematic. CISP is a gateway to services, but for many clients the main outcome of their engagement with CISP is referral to a service agency, and looking for tangible outcomes is premature. This is most evident in relation to housing issues. While CISP was successful in referring clients to housing services, the waiting times associated with providing more stable accommodation are such that there Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 12

13 was little change in actual housing status across the period of their engagement. A second problem is that outcomes are only known for those clients who remain engaged with CISP. (Chapters 3.6, 5.4 and 7.5) 15. What factors are important in determining program completion? Around six in ten engaged clients complete CISP successfully. Statistical models to predict completion outcomes were developed. The most important factors predicting non-completion were whether the offender was in custody at the time she/he was assessed for CISP, whether CISP was made a condition of bail, and the offenders level of accommodation stability at the time of CISP entry. Court location was also an important factor in predicting non-completion outcomes but it seems likely that this is an artefact of the generally higher completion rates at Latrobe Valley. 16. What is the impact of CISP on court workloads? Engagement in CISP affects court workloads in a number of ways. In order to be considered for CISP, offenders must go through a screening assessment, and this may involve some delay in hearing their bail application. Judicial supervision involving a return to court may involve additional appearances and may require adjustment to Magistrates work schedules. Positive impacts on court workloads include avoiding adjournments required to arrange services for offenders, and avoiding new court appearances associated with recidivist offending. Overall, Magistrates report that CISP does require additional work on their part, but that this is justified by the better results they achieve. 17. Does involvement in CISP lead to lower rates of non-compliance on bail or Community Corrections orders? For any pre-trial program, bail completion rates are obviously a key outcome. However, bail data is not currently able to be extracted in a manner that allows reliable and consistent analysis of bail outcomes for CISP clients and Victorian offenders generally. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 13

14 The absence of bail data constitutes a significant barrier to the evaluation of court programs in Victoria. Community corrections order compliance rates were not available for CISP clients as a group. Again, this represents a significant information gap in evaluating programs of this kind. Order compliance was examined for sample of 200 CISP participants, and 200 comparison offenders matched on gender, age, offence type and offence history. The overall successful completion rates for orders up to June 2009 were 49% for the CISP sample, and 45% for the control sample. While positive, this difference was not statistically significant. The successful completion rate for CCS orders state-wide in 2007/08 was 58%, however the sampling process means that these rates cannot be directly compared with one another. 18. Does involvement in CISP lead to lower rates of re-offending? Re-offending rates were examined for the same 200 CISP and comparison offenders as in the order compliance analysis. They were followed up for between 400 and 900 days and any further offences or new charges were recorded. For the CISP group, around 50% were classed as recidivists, of whom 40% had proven charges against them, and a further 10% had charges that had not been finalized. In the comparison group, 64% were classed as recidivists, with 50% having proven charges recorded and a further 13% having unfinalized charges. After 200 days around 30% of the CISP group and 32.5% of the control group had recidivated. By 400 days the degree of divergence was six percent (37% of the CISP group and 43% of the control group) and by 600 days it was eight percent (40% of the CISP group and 48% of the control group. The extent of divergence in re-offending rates reaches its maximum of ten percent by around 700 days. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 14

15 Recommendations Recommendation 1: Establish a review of court support programs with the aim of developing a general court support service model that provides statewide services to all the Victorian Magistrates Court at all its venues and across all specialist lists and divisions. The CISP program has achieved its primary output and outcome goals, including: achievement of referral targets; exceeding the target rate for engagements; satisfying the requirement for level of engagement to be matched to need; achieving a high rate of program completions; achieving a high rate of treatment and support program referrals, and; demonstrating a high level of support from Magistrates and other stakeholders. The program has received continuing funding for two years. The primary issue is therefore what should be the future of this program in the period after 2011? The CISP service delivery model is one of a range of clinical and support program service approaches currently operating in Victorian courts. The other programs include CREDIT/Bail Support, the Neighbourhood Justice Centre client services function, Drug Court, Koori Court, and the applicant and defendant support functions for the Family Violence Courts. Each is based on different assumptions and service models, and each involves some specific skill sets. However, underpinning all these services is a general body of clinical knowledge and technique and common case management, support and other court-based functions. It is proposed that there should be a general review of these approaches with a view to creating a court support services function that would provide the basis for the delivery of a range of clinical, support, referral, supervision and case management services to clients of the Magistrates Court of Victoria. This review should consider the following issues: The contribution of court services to the continuing development of therapeutic jurisprudence practices Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 15

16 The creation of functional specializations that can be applied across a range of court business streams and specialist lists and divisions. These might include: Client assessment Case management Victim counselling The development of client services infrastructure for court services comprising: Information management tools Co-ordinated training and professional development Clinical and case management tools and systems (for example, common assessment tools and procedures), and Professional resource kits (for example, centrally maintained databases of service provider agencies). The development of a mobile service capacity appropriate for regional courts Recommendation 2: Continue to develop and support the connections between CISP and therapeutic jurisprudence practices CISP is an integral element in therapeutic jurisprudence processes that commence at the bail stage and continue throughout the offender s involvement in the court process and through into supervision under court order. For the full value of the interventions and support delivered through CISP to be realized there needs to be continued development of the program s connections with post-sentence support and interventions. This may also include provision for ongoing judicial review in selected cases. Recommendation 3: Legislative or procedural amendments are required to allow defendants charged with serious indictable offences to be subject to judicial monitoring through CISP. Where a defendant is charged with a serious indictable offence and then bailed, there is limited capacity for a Magistrate to exercise judicial supervision with regular reviews of the defendant. Legislative or procedural amendments are required to allow defendants charged with serious indictable offences to be subject to judicial monitoring. This might require establishing reporting dates intermediate between the Filing Hearing and Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 16

17 Committal Mention appearance that would apply to defendants placed on CISP. These legislative changes might also support the extension of the program to the County Court. Recommendation 4: The CISP Policy and Procedures Manual should be supplemented with training and procedural advice on assessment procedures and working in a court environment. The material on assessment procedures should include more detailed information about the clinical aspects of forensic practice, assessment criteria for the elements of the Screening Assessment, and the interpretation and integration of assessment information across multiple problem domains (especially substance abuse and mental health). The development of more explicit eligibility criteria may also assist staff by making such decisions more externally accountable. The material on working in a court environment should include advice on court processes, reporting in court, and the roles of other professional groups in the court (especially lawyers and police) and the development and management of effective relationships with them. Recommendation 5: The CISP Screening Assessment should be subject to regular review and staff should receive feedback on the aggregated results of assessments. It is important to maintain staff commitment to the structured assessment model for CISP. Two strategies for this are regular reviews of the assessment process (every second year) to ensure that the assessment content and procedures remain up to date and consistent with work practices, and demonstrating the value of the collection of assessment data through communication with staff about the results of assessments. Recommendation 6: Provide CISP staff with more explicit program eligibility and suitability criteria. Both Magistrates and case managers are aware that some referrals are made that are not appropriate for the program. This can be addressed by providing more explicit referral Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 17

18 criteria that take into account factors such as the defendants previous bail history, any breaches of suspended sentences or Community Corrections orders, and other factors relevant to the court s bail decision. One possibility would be to establish three referral outcomes: unsuitable and rejected referrals (as at present), referrals accepted for assessment, and referrals where a Magistrate s approval should be sought before accepting the defendant for assessment Recommendation 7: CISP program goals for drugs and alcohol should be concerned with effectiveness of the referral process and maintaining clients engagement with treatment programs. Improved drug and alcohol outcomes are part of the CISP goal set, however it seems inappropriate to hold the program responsible for treatment goals that are beyond its direct control. The key service delivery issues for CISP are how effectively it operates as a referral pathway and case management service. The indicators of success in this area should be whether drug and alcohol program referrals are based on a comprehensive assessment of clients risks and needs, and whether clients are provided with the support and supervision that ensures they satisfy the attendance requirements for drug and alcohol services. Recommendation 8: Review the Justice Housing Support program protocol to give greater weight to the needs of pre-trial defendants. It is recommended that the service level agreement for the JHSP should be reviewed to determine whether justice outcomes can be better achieved through greater focus on short-term accommodation. This review process should consider: The likely future availability of long-term housing places for justice clients taking into account patterns of intake and transition to permanent housing for justice clients; and The need for short-term housing places for justice clients and the impact of availability of this form of housing on justice system outcomes, in particular bail and remand decisions. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 18

19 Recommendation 9: Review the provision of services to justice system clients with suspected Acquired Brain Injury The rate of suspected Acquired Brain Injury in program clients is much higher than allowed for in the demand modelling for CISP. This points to a high rate of ABI in justice client populations generally, and indicates that a comprehensive strategy to address this issue is required. While arbias 1 provides a high-quality assessment and service response for these defendants, the timescales involved are longer than can be accommodated in a pre-trial program. CISP case managers should receive additional advice on the management of such cases while awaiting full neuropsychological assessments. There should also be consideration of the continuing management of these clients as they progress through other stages of the justice system. 1 Alcohol Related Brain Injury Australian Service Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 19

20 Part 1: Program description Chapter 1 Introduction This is the final evaluation report on the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). The evaluation commenced in late 2006 and the findings presented here cover the implementation and operation of the program up to the middle of This report is the fourth report on the CISP program arising out of the evaluation, and it incorporates some material presented in interim evaluation reports prepared in 2007 and A special report in 2008 examined the assessment of clients risks and needs. The evaluation approach used for CISP focused initially on the conceptualization of the program (that is, its theoretical and policy basis), followed by examination of program implementation issues. This final report is mainly concerned with the outcomes of the program, but where appropriate it makes reference to process and implementation issues. The evaluation had two primary objectives: To determine the effectiveness of the CISP in meeting its overarching objective to reduce the re-offending rate of defendants To gather objective evidence to support future decision making by the Victorian Government in relation to the cost effectiveness of this initiative, and its expansion state-wide. The project specification also identified six areas of program effectiveness and efficiency to be examined by the evaluation. These included: Stakeholder satisfaction with services Program process efficiencies Reduction in re-offending rates Enhanced order compliance Reductions in drug use and drug-related harms, and improvements in clients health and well-being The impact of the program on justice system load Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 20

21 The project specification also included an econometric (cost-effectiveness) component. This was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers and is reported separately. 1.1 Description of the Court Integrated Services Program The Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) commenced at the beginning of 2007 after an establishment period in late The program represents a development of existing pre-trial and bail support program models, and in particular the CREDIT (Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug intervention and Treatment) and Bail Support programs, established in Victoria in 1998 and 2001 respectively. The CISP model diverges from traditional pre-trial programs in placing more emphasis on addressing the underlying causes of offending through: - Greater emphasis on individualized case management. Case management in CISP involves more therapeutic interactions between clients and workers, in comparison with the predominantly referral and advocacy approach of many pre-trial programs; - The CISP program teams are multi-disciplinary, and the referral and assessment process is intended to match clients needs with workers skills and expertise. CISP brings together a range of services that were previously available to defendants as separate services; - The case management model provides for three levels of service response (Intensive, Intermediate and Community Referral) and clients are intended to be directed to these levels of service response in a manner consistent with their assessed level of risk and need. - Establishing service agreements with housing agencies as part of the Justice Housing Support Program, with arbias for the provision of Acquired Brain Injury assessment and support services, and with the Community Offenders Advice and Treatment Service (COATS) for drug and alcohol assessment and referral services. CISP operates at three Victorian Magistrates Court venues: Melbourne, Sunshine and Morwell. The first two venues are metropolitan courts servicing inner Melbourne and the western suburbs respectively, while the Morwell venue services the Latrobe Valley, to the east of Melbourne. The program is managed within the Court Support and Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 21

22 Diversion Services branch of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, and has a staff complement of 26, including four team leader positions, 18 case manager positions and four administrative positions. Chapter 2 of this report gives more details of the volume and nature of the program s case-flows, and Chapter 4 provides a more detailed description of the clinical and case management processes in the program. Readers of this evaluation report may find it useful to understand how CISP operates in a day-to-day sense. The following case study describes a typical case and illustrates the way the program interacts with court bail and sentencing processes. A CISP case history A 32-year old male on remand was assessed, at his request, for CISP. The person had a very long history of offending, had served a number of gaol and Community Corrections sentences. At the time of his assessment he was facing two separate sets of charges involving burglary and theft, and was in breach of a suspended sentence. The most likely outcome for a defendant with this history would be a further gaol sentence. During the assessment, the CISP case manager noted that the person showed indications of an acquired brain injury (ABI) as well as other psychological issues. As part of his parole conditions, the offender had been attending Turning Point for counselling where he had established a beneficial therapeutic relationship with his counsellor which he wished to continue. However, the case manager ascertained that the offender was ineligible for CISP because he was currently serving a period of parole. Bail was granted with various conditions. The case was adjourned to a date after his parole expired. The CISP case manager liaised with the supervising Community Corrections Officer in relation to the issues identified for the offender, and Corrections worked with him on those issues for the rest of the parole period. On the return date, the offender reiterated his commitment to CISP and his bail was varied to include participation on CISP as a bail condition. While on CISP he continued his treatment at Turning Point, attended all appointments with CISP, found housing, maintained pharmacotherapy, remained abstinent from drugs, remained in a stable relationship, participated on a Personal Support Program through Centrelink and maintained psychological counselling as arranged through CISP. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 22

23 At the sentencing hearing a number of reports were tendered to the court from CISP, Turning Point, and the Centrelink PSP case manager, as well as a report on his parole from the Community Corrections Officer. The reports all attested to the effort that the offender had put in whilst on the program and the progress he had made. In all, the offender had been under court supervision for over eight months, including three months on bail while completing parole and five months on CISP. The magistrate imposed a further suspended sentence. It was deemed by the magistrate that it would be counter-productive to impose an immediate custodial sentence given the progress made by the offender and his prospects for long-term rehabilitation. The prosecutor was invited to make a submission in relation to the restoration of the suspended sentence. He indicated that in view of the offender s excellent progress, he declined to make any further submissions. The magistrate made no further order on the breach of the suspended sentence. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the offender asked to address the Court. He thanked the magistrate and his CISP case-manager for the opportunity and indicated that he was planning to attend TAFE to study social work. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 23

24 Chapter 2 Case flows & system load 2.1 Case flow and system load goals A number of the goals of the CISP are concerned with the way that clients are recruited for the program, enter and progress through the program, and finally exit. These processes are referred to as case flow, and the case flow goals set for CISP included: The number of clients engaged at the three program venues would meet specified targets. These targets were set on the basis of case flows for the existing CREDIT/Bail Support, Disability Services and Aboriginal Liaison programs, plus an estimated number of new referrals. These case flow targets are shown in Table 2.1 below. Clients would be allocated to the appropriate program level based on their assessed risk and needs. Clients would spend up to four months on the program, with case management to monitor the defendant s progress, address identified needs and provide access to support services, and plan for the client s exit. Judicial monitoring will be used where deemed necessary and appropriate by the judicial officer. Case location Referral targets Latrobe Melbourne Sunshine Total Valley Existing ALO, CREDIT/BSP and DS referrals New CISP referrals Targets for CISP referrals Table 2.1 CISP case flow targets (annual) This chapter examines the case flow outcomes of CISP, including: Numbers and sources of referrals to the program, Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 24

25 Engagement rates by program level Judicial monitoring rates Completion rates and non-completion factors Duration of engagement Except where stated, all information presented in this chapter is derived from the CISP Platypus Systems Case Management System (PSCMS). 2.2 CISP program flow processes CISP begins when a person is charged with criminal offences. At this stage, the person may be in custody awaiting a bail hearing, already on bail, or summonsed to appear. The CISP case flow process includes the following stages: Prospective clients may be referred to CISP from a variety of sources, including their legal representative, police, another treatment or support program, court staff including the judiciary (via the court hearing as part of the bail application), family and friends or self-referred. A referral application is completed to determine whether the person should be further assessed for the CISP via the screening assessment process. This referral application collects identifying information on the person and his/her legal representative, offence and legal status, indigenous status, and any issues or problems that might warrant assessment by CISP staff. The information on the referral form is used to determine allocation to a case worker who completes a more detailed assessment. This Screening Assessment includes a more detailed criminal and legal history, an assessment of the person s social and economic support needs, drug and alcohol use, and physical and mental health. At the end of the Screening Assessment a brief assessment of risks is also completed. Where a client is assessed as appropriate for a Level 1 (Community Referral) response, only basic information is collected at this assessment. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 25

26 Following the screening assessment, the client may return to court where conditions associated with his or her involvement in CISP may be attached to the Bail Order. There is considerable variability in practice at this stage, with some Magistrates making a Bail Order with conditions relating to CISP engagement, while others recommend CISP engagement but without any court direction. Magistrates may also order the person to re-appear at a later date for a progress review. When a client is engaged with CISP, the case worker prepares a case management plan that may involve referral to a range of treatment and support agencies, as well as continued supervision through CISP. Program exit occurs when the case management plan is completed, the client fails to satisfy the plan s requirements, or other legal matters arise. The CISP pathway is shown in Figure 2.1 Figure 2.1 CISP Process Map (March 2005) Referrals to CISP 2 From CISP Service Delivery Model (Department of Justice, 16 March 2006) Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 26

27 The CISP was launched in November 2006 at the Melbourne and Sunshine Magistrates Courts and the program took a small number of clients during the final months of In the first year of the program (2007), a total of 1,752 clients were referred to the program, and in 2008 this had increased to 2,004 referrals. Approximately 60% of referrals were to the Melbourne venue of the program, 27% were to the Sunshine venue, and 11% were to the Latrobe Valley venue. There was little evidence of a ramp-up phase for the program (a period when referrals increased rapidly over a period of months from an initial low level to a higher, more stable level), probably because the program was seen as being a continuation of the earlier CREDIT/Bail, Disability and ALO programs that were present at these venues. However, there is evidence of a gradual increase in the referral rate over the two years for the program as a whole, and for the Sunshine and Latrobe Valley venues. Figure 2.2 shows the monthly number of clients referred to CISP at each venue, and the linear trend lines for each venue. Monthly referrals to CISP January 2007 March 2007 May 2007 July 2007 September 2007 November 2007 January 2008 March 2008 May 2008 July 2008 September 2008 November 2008 Latrobe Valley Melbourne Sunshine CISP total Linear (Latrobe Valley) Linear (Sunshine) Linear (Melbourne) Linear (CISP total) Figure 2.2 Monthly referrals at each venue The trend line for Melbourne is stable (that is, the slope is not significantly different from zero), but the trends for Sunshine, Latrobe Valley and the program as a whole all show significant positive slopes. There is some evidence of a levelling off in referrals in the last Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 27

28 six months of 2008 at each of the venues but it is too early to say whether this indicates stabilization in the rate of program referrals. It should be noted that the number of referrals to CISP reported in internal monthly reports cannot be validated from PSCMS case management system records. Over the 2007 and 2008 years an additional 499 additional referrals were reported in monthly reports, but these cannot be reliably identified from PSCMS referral records. Around half of these additional referrals were not assessed for the program, and none became program clients at program levels 1, 2 or 3. Repeat clients A substantial number of CISP referrals involve clients who have been previously referred to this program or its predecessor (CREDIT/Bail Support). Of the 3,756 CISP referrals in 2007 and 2008, there were 2,710 defendants who were only referred once over the period, 384 who were referred twice, 73 who were referred three times, and 14 who were referred four or more times. Overall, 28% of CISP referrals involve defendants who have had previous contact with the program. Referrals are also cross-matched with client records from the CREDIT /Bail Support (CBS) program. In the first six months of the program, 19% of referrals were defendants who had previously been engaged with the CBS program, but by the second half of 2007 this had fallen to 12% and by 2008 less than 10% of referrals had prior involvement with CBS. Persons with significant criminal behaviour frequently go through repeated court episodes in a given period, and hence some level of multiple engagement in a program like CISP is to be expected. Since each referral constitutes a separate assessment and case management process, the remainder of this analysis will use referral episodes ( cases ) as the primary unit of analysis. Source of referrals The most common source of referrals to CISP was the defendant s legal representative. Eight in every ten referrals were from this source. Magistrates accounted for the next largest group (12.5%), and self-referrals accounted for a further 5%. Referrals from Magistrates were less frequently made at Latrobe Valley than at the other two sites, and while referrals by police were uncommon at all three sites, they were least likely at Melbourne. Within the Other category are nine referrals that were Crimes Family Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 28

29 Violence cases: eight of these were referrals from the Sunshine venue. Note that provision to record these CFV referrals on the CMS was only made in Prior to this these were recorded as Magistrate referrals, and the real number in this group is somewhat higher. Referral source Legal representative Case location Latrobe Valley Melbourne Sunshine Total N % 86.4% 79.5% 76.1% 79.4% Judiciary N % 4.5% 12.6% 15.9% 12.6% Self referral/ N family or friend % 4.0% 5.3% 4.1% 4.8% Treatment or support N agency/service % 2.6% 1.5%.9% 1.4% Police member N % 1.9%.2% 1.3%.7% Other N %.7%.9 1.8% 1.1% Total N % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 2.2 Source of Referrals by Venue The source of referrals altered somewhat over the two years, with referrals by legal representatives falling from 84% of all referrals in the first six months of the program, to 75% in the second half of Referrals by Magistrates increased from 10% to 14%, and self-referrals increased from 3% to 6% over the same period. Magistrate referrals were more likely where the defendant was female, and female defendants were also more likely to self-refer. Melbourne Criminological Research and Evaluation 29