family drug courts
play

Family Drug Courts San Mateo County Blue Ribbon Commission - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Family Drug Courts San Mateo County Blue Ribbon Commission Presented by Jane Pfeifer, MPA Family Drug Court Senior Program Associate Children and Family Futures 3 NCSACW In-Depth Technical Assistance Sites (IDTA) Children Affected by


  1. Family Drug Courts San Mateo County Blue Ribbon Commission Presented by Jane Pfeifer, MPA Family Drug Court Senior Program Associate Children and Family Futures 3 NCSACW In-Depth Technical Assistance Sites (IDTA) Children Affected by Methamphetamine Sites (CAM) Title Children’s Bureau Regional Partnership Grants (RPG) Children and Family Futures OJJDP Family Drug Courts (OJJDP) The Mission – to improve the lives of children and families, particularly those affected by substance use disorders • Consults with government agencies and service providers to ensure that effective services are provided to families RPG Sites (53 Sites) • Advises Federal, State, and local government and community-based Array of Services (11) agencies, and conducts research on the best ways to prevent and Child Focused (8) address the problem Drug Courts (10) NCSACW IDTA System-Wide Collaboration (9) • Provides comprehensive and innovative solutions to policy makers and (20 Sites) NCSACW CAM Treatment Focused (9) OJJDP Grantees (12 Sites ) practitioners Tribal (6) 2 (34 Sites) 4 1

  2. Lessons Learned from FAMILY Drug Courts 7 513,000 559,000 In Care 38 FDCs in 400,540 29 California Counties 299,000 311,000 252,320 Entries 1999 2005 2011 8 6 2

  3. PARENTAL AOD AS REASON FOR REMOVAL IN THE UNITED STATES 1998-2011 70 60 50 PERCENT 40 29.3 28.4 26.3 26.1 25.8 26.1 30 24.9 23.4 22.7 21.6 19.6 18.5 15.8 20 13.9 10 S o urc e : AF CARS Data F ile s 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 How far have we come? 9 Parental AOD as Reason for Adoption and Safe Families Act Removal slide from BtB • Cases lingering in Court system as parents cycled in and out of treatment • Children left in foster care for months or even years • Emphasis on establishing permanency within federally mandated time frames 10 12 3

  4. The Birth of the FDC Movement New Partnerships, Creative Approaches The need for immediate and efficient intervention First FDCs convened in Reno, Nevada and became overwhelmingly important in the face of Pensacola, Florida in 1994 - 1995 implementing the Adoption and Safe Families Act 13 15 Common Vision Common Ingredients of FDCs Extraordinary Effort • Increased • System of Court management of identifying recovery services families and compliance Drug Treatment • Earlier access • Responses to to assessment participant Child Welfare and treatment behaviors (sanctions & services incentives) • Collaborative • Increased approach across judicial service systems oversight 3 and Court • Mandates • Timing Systems with multiple: • Training • Methods • Values 2002 Process Evaluation 14 16 4

  5. HIGHER TREATMENT Regional Partnership Grants COMPLETION RATES Family Drug Courts SHORTER TIME IN FOSTER CARE HIGHER FAMILY REUNIFICATION RATES LOWER TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS RPG FDC FEWER NEW CPS PETITIONS • 5,200 AFTER REUNIFICATION children • 8,000 COST SAVINGS PER FAMILY adults 24 Grantee Sites 17 19 FDC Local Evaluations Treatment Completions Reunification Rates 80 100 Maine (3) (N=49, 38 * ) Completion Rate 80 60 FR Rates Marion County, OR (N=39, 49) 60 40 Jackson County, OR (N=329, 340) 40 Suffolk, NY (N=117, 239) 20 Washoe, NV (N=84,127) 20 Up to 20-30% higher Up to 20-40 % higher 0 Sacramento, CA (N=4,858, 111) 0 Baltimore, MD (N=200, 200) Santa Clara, CA (N=100, 370) FDC vs Comparison (Source: Marlowe and Carey, May 2012) San Diego, CA (N=438, 388) London, England (N=55, 31) New CPS Petition after Days in Foster Care FR 800 Pima County, AZ (N=33, 45) 30 Infrequent, 600 New Petition # of Days In all conditions 20 400 11 FDC Sites 10 200 Several Fewer Months (N= FDC, Comparison ) 0 0 * Maine = only 1 of 2 comparison groups are (Source: Marlowe and Carey, May 2012) 20 18 reported in this presentation 5

  6. Cost Savings Per Family Children Remain Home 90 80 80 70 61.1 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 $5,022 Baltimore, MD RPG FDC Services as Usual Burrus, et al., 2011 $5,593 Jackson County, OR Carey , et al., 2010 $13,104 Marion County, OR Carey , et al., 2010 21 23 FDCs are Serving Families Recurrence of Child Maltreatment within Six Months 7.0%  Holistic approach, addresses family well-being 5.8%  FDCs hold parents accountable for their recovery and 6.0% systems accountable for child outcomes 4.9% 5.0%  Family stress and trauma can greatly contribute to relapse  Family stability can greatly contribute to recovery 4.0% 3.4% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% RPG Children ‐ FTDC RPG Children ‐ No FTDC 25 State Contextual Subgroup 24 6

  7. Prevalence Rate slide from What about BtB families with: • Co-occurring mental health • Criminal history • Inadequate housing • Domestic violence 25 Prevalence of the Issue Parents with How many c hildr en in the c hild welfar e system extensive criminal have a par ent in need of tr eatment? histories, inadequate housing, and a • Be twe e n 60-80% o f substantiate d c hild abuse and greater risk for DV ne gle c t c ase s invo lve substanc e s by a c usto dial pare nt o r guardian (Yo ung, e t al, 2007) were more likely to • 61% o f infants, 41% o f o lde r c hildre n who are in complete FDC than o ut-o f-ho me c are (Wulc zyn , E rnst and F ishe r, 2011) those without these • 87% o f familie s in fo ste r c are with o ne pare nt in ne e d risk factors. o f tre atme nt; 67% with two pare nts in ne e d (Smith, Jo hnso n, Pe ars, F ishe r, De Garmo , 2007) 28 *Douglas Marlowe and Shannon Carey, Research Update on Family Drug Courts, NADCP, May 2012 26 7

  8. Defining the Need in Questions & Discussion San Mateo County Total # of children in substantiated cases: 449 Number due to substance abuse : 269 (60% estimate) Number of parents: 188 (.7 parents per child) 65: Potential served in FDC (35%) http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/Alle gations.aspx 29 No magic wands, Just released! but a range of tools • Best practice standards • Information systems • Screening and assessment tools • Research capacity • Training and technical assistance • Leadership and To download, please visit: champions http://www.cffutures.org/files/publications/FDC-Guidelines.pdf 30 32 8

  9. Includes: FDC Guidelines  Recommendations, Strategies, Research Findings –  CFF in partnership with OJJDP, Federal and State information on best practices and collaborative principles to stakeholders crafted a guidance document develop and sustain FDCs  Best practices and principles for developing performance  Appendix – structure that States and counties can use to guidelines for FDC create a multi ‐ disciplinary and collaborative structure for their  Based on research, previous publications, expert input and FDC established standards adopted by various States  Facilitator’s Guide – to guide collaborative implementation  Resource tool for States to create their own guidelines that efforts and provide suggestions, tools, and templates to help reflect their local and unique needs staff create, govern, and work within a collaborative structure 33 35 FDC Recommendations Shared Outcomes Collaboration Services • Funding & • Early Sustainability Identification & • Cross System Assessment Knowledge • Needs of Adults • Information Sharing • Needs of Children • Interagency • Community Partnerships Support Mission & Vision 34 36 9

  10. National Center for Substance Abuse and Child Welfare NCSACW Jackson County Family Drug Baltimore City Circuit Court, Online Tutorials Juvenile Division Court 16 th Judicial District Maryland 1. Understanding Substance Abuse and Facilitating Recovery: A Guide for Missouri Judge: Robert B. Kershaw Child Welfare Workers Commissioner: Molly Merrigan 2. Understanding Child Welfare and the Dependency Court: A Guide for Chatham County Juvenile Court, Substance Abuse Treatment Professionals Pima County Juvenile Court Family Dependency Treatment Court Arizona Georgia 3. Understanding Substance Use Disorders, Treatment and Family Recovery: A Guide for Legal Professionals Judge: Susan A. Kettlewell Judge: Patricia P. Stone Please visit: http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/ CON CONTACT US US FO FOR MO MORE RE IN INFORMATION: Peer erLear arni ningCo Cour urts@cffut utures es.o .org 37 F amily Drug Court Learning Academy National Center on Substance Webinar Series Abuse and Child Welfare Resources 2014 • Conference presentations • Workshop trainings • Online tutorials • Toolkits This Changes Everything • Publications • Video Please visit: F or more information, please visit the F DC Learning Academy www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/ Webinar Library www.cffutures.org/presentations/webinars/category/fdc-series 38 10

Recommend


More recommend